Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

TYNESIDE TRAMWAYS AND TRAMROADS COMPANY BILL [Lords].

Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

LANARKSHIRE TRACTION ORDER CON- FIRMATION BILL (by Order).

Second Reading deferred till Wednesday.

MERCANTILE MARINE (HELM ORDERS).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to present a petition on behalf of the Mercantile Marine Association in which they represent that no necessity exists for the proposed change in the long-established custom of giving helm orders at sea, under Article 41 of the International Convention, issued by a body on which the masters and navigating officers are not represented and to which they strenuously object as involving grave danger to life and property at sea.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA

PUBLICATIONS (INTERCEPTION)

Mr. DAY: 1.
asked the Secretary of State for India the number of publications that have been confiscated in India under Section 19 of the Sea Customs Act during the three years ended to the last convenient date; and can he give particulars?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Wedgwood Benn): I have no figures for the three years; but in the year ended 1st October last copies of 58 publications were intercepted. They were mostly issued by the Communist International or subsidiary organisations.

Mr. DAY: Will my right hon. Friend say whether any of the other books of which he has particulars were prohibited on moral grounds?

Mr. BENN: There may have been some, but I do not think the majority.

BRITISH ARMY (INDIAN OFFICERS).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether any Indian gentlemen have been trained, or are under training, as artillery officers in His Majesty's Army; and, if so, how many?

Mr. BENN: The answer to both parts of the question is, "None, as yet."

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: When does my right hon. Friend intend to take definite action to provide for training Indian officers?

Mr. BENN: The reason that no Indian candidate has been admitted to Woolwich is because none has yet qualified.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: But when can he arrange to train these gentlemen in India?

Mr. BENN: It has been decided provisionally that candidates for commissions must be trained in cadet colleges in this country.

RAILWAY ROLLING STOCK (CONTINENTAL ORDERS).

Sir JOHN FERGUSON: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for India what is the value of the orders placed on the Continent by the India store department, London, acting for the Government of India, since 1st January, 1929, to date, for locomotives, spares, rolling stock, rails, etc.?

Mr. BENN: The value of the orders fur railway materials placed on the Continent by the High Commissioner in London since 1st January, 1929, is £943,000.

Sir J. FERGUSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman do everything in his power to influence that business for this country, on account of the wages which it means to our workers?

Mr. BENN: I am very glad indeed to see orders come to this country, but the hon. Baronet probably knows that we are acting under a rule proposed to and accepted by the Government of India in the Legislative Assembly.

Mr. HANNON: Could nut the right hon. Gentleman occasionally make a kindly suggestion to the Indian Government?

Mr. BENN: I am very glad indeed to see orders coming here, but India must manage her own affairs in her own interests.

Mr. DAY: Is it not a fact that the money expended on these orders is raised in the City of London?

MR. SAKLATVALA.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he will withdraw the ban imposed on Mr. Saklatvala attending the Indian National Congress?

Mr. BENN: I fear I cannot alter my decision.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it extremely harsh to prevent an ex-Member of Parliament going back to his native land, and is he not rebuked by the echoes of his own speeches on the subject?

Mr. BENN: I do not like doing it at all, but I have to consider a very delicate situation ill India.

INDIAN CENTRAL COMMITTEE (REPORT).

Major GRAHAM POLE: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether, in regard to the decision of the Viceroy to make public the Report of the Indian Central Committee as soon as possible, he is now in a position to inform the House as to the approximate date of publication?

Mr. BENN: Probably about the end of the year.

REPRESSIVE LAWS COMMITTEE (RECOMMENDATIONS).

Major POLE: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he will give the House particulars in respect of the chief recommendations made by the Repressive Laws Committee set up by the Government of India in 1921 under the chairmanship of the Law member of the Government; and what action has been taken by the Government of India on each of these recommendations?

Mr. BENN: All the nine enactments or portions thereof, the immediate repeal of which the Committee recommended, have been repealed except the State Prisoners Acts of 1850 and 1858. One other enactment and a portion of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1908, which the Committee thought could not then be repealed remain on the Statute Book; and the amendment of Bengal Regulation III of 1818 and the corresponding Madras and Bombay Regulations of 1819 and 1827 which the Committee recommended has not yet been undertaken. The retention of these
Regulations has necessitated the retention of the Acts of 1850 and 1858 just referred to.

Major POLE: Do we understand that these things are under consideration at the present time?

Mr. BENN: That is not in the question. Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will put it down.

INDIAN ARMY (BRITISFI OFFICERS' PENSIONS).

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he is aware that British executive officers of the Indian Army who became qualified for pension between 1st January and 1st April, 1919, were awarded pensions on the same scale as officers of the British Army in India; that those qualifying between 1st April, 1919, and 1st October, 1925, were awarded pensions lower by £90 a year; and that in 1925 equality of pensions with officers of the British Army was again conceded; and if he will now urge the Government of India to make this concession apply to the officers of the Indian Army who retired between 1919 and 1925 and whose services deserve equal treatment?

Mr. BENN: I have explained the position with regard to departmental officers of the India Unattached List in a statement furnished to the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) which I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I fear I can hold out no hope of reversing the existing decision.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Does it mean that the Secretary of State condones the injustice towards these men simply because they happen to fall in a different year of retirement?

Mr. BENN: I do not like to hear that reflection on the late Government.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Was it not a mistake that these officers were left out, seeing that before April, 1919, and after 1925 they were treated in the same way as British officers of the Indian Army, and will the right hon. Gentleman not rectify this error?

Mr. BENN: I do not accept the hon. and gallant Member's presentation of the case.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Is it not the right hon. Gentleman's object to try and redress grievances that may have been made by previous Governments?

Mr. BENN: Certainly.

Following is the statement:

It was decided in 1920 not to apply the British Army rules and rates for pension to departmental officers of the India Unattached List, because the conditions of service of these officers, unlike those of officers of the Indian Army generally, were markedly different from those of the corresponding classes in the British Army. The effect of the 1920 scheme was to give these departmental officers the equivalent on an average of the corresponding British Army pensions, having regard to the differences in conditions of service; though some individuals might receive rather more and others rather less. The difference of £90 quoted in the question represents the extreme case in which the maximum of £360 for a departmental Major is compared with the maximum of £450 for a Major in the British Army. Owing, however., to the difference in conditions, the proportion of departmental officers who could expect to attain the maximum pension of £360 was much greater than that of the corresponding officers in the British Army who could expect to attain their maximum of £450.

VIZAGAPATAN HARBOUR.

Commander OLIVER LOCKER-LAMPSON: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether any further delays will take place in the completion of the Vizagapatan harbour; and if it is likely to be in use next year?

Mr. BENN: I have no later information than that contained in my reply to the hon. and gallant Member's question on 22nd July last.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

PROPAGANDA (DOMINIONS).

Captain CROOKSHANK: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Soviet Government has agreed to the request of the Dominion Governments that the guarantees against propaganda should be made applicable to them?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Arthur Henderson): The question of the exchange of guarantees against propaganda between His Majesty's Governments in the Dominions and the Soviet Government is still the subject of negotiation between His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, in consultation with His Majesty's Governments in the Dominions, and the Soviet Government.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Did not the right hon. Gentleman say that the Ambassador would not go to Moscow until the matter had been settled?

Mr. HENDERSON: No, I never said anything of the kind.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Oh yes, you did.

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

BRITISH RELATIONS.

Mr. ALBERY: 28.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the Russian Ambassador has arrived?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: No, Sir, but I understand that the Soviet Ambassador will reach London on the 10th or 11th of December.

Captain EDEN: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when the Ambassador will be leaving?

Mr. HENDERSON: That will depend on when the gale subsides.

Commander O. LOCKER-LAMPSON: 29.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now give the date upon which he expects the Soviet Ambassador; and where he will take up his headquarters in London?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: As regards the first part of the question, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply which I have to-day returned to a similar question put by the hon. Member for Gravesend (Mr. Albery). It is not yet known where the Soviet Ambassador will take up his residence.

Commander LOCKER-LAMPSON: When the Soviet Ambassador does arrive, if there is a revival of trouble and propaganda will the right hon. Gentleman invite him to return?

Captain PETER MACDONALD: 30.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, seeing that Article 9 of the Protocol of 3rd October, 1929, signed by himself and M. Dovgalevski, provides that the decision concerning the re-establishment of diplomatic relations will be brought for approval before Parliament before each of the two Governments take the usual steps for the appointment of their respective Ambassadors, he will suspend further steps for the exchange of Ambassadors until this condition is completely fulfilled?

Mr. MOND: 31.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, seeing that paragraph 9 of the Protocol of 3rd October, 1929, signed by himself and M. Dovgalevski, provides that the stops to be taken under preceding paragraphs of the Protocol, including the decision concerning the re-establishment of diplomatic relations, will be brought for approval before Parliament early at the beginning of the next Session, it is the intention of the British Government to observe these terms of the Protocol; and, if so, whether he proposes to render void the steps already taken to re-establish diplomatic relations until both Houses of Parliament shall have come to a decision on the matter?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: Paragraph 9 of the Protocol of the 3rd October was designed to enable His Majesty's Government to comply with the undertaking given to the House by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, on the 15th of July, to the effect that any conclusion which His Majesty's Government might come to regarding the resumption of relations could not become effective until it had been debated in this House. In compliance with that undertaking, and in accordance with the understanding with the Soviet Government recorded in paragraph 9 of the Protocol, the decision reached by His Majesty's Government was debated in this House on the 5th November. The reply to the last part of both questions is in the negative.

Captain MACDONALD: Is it not a fact that in this Protocol the word "Parliament" means both Houses of Parliament?

Mr. HENDERSON: If taken in the light of the statement that I have just
made and the pledge given by the Prime Minister on the date mentioned in my last answer, I think he had in mind that the Debate had to take place in this House. Moreover, in that reply he did undertake to follow as far as possible the procedure that had been followed by the previous Government when diplomatic relations were abandoned, and in that case the Debate only took place in this House.

Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman asked the approval of this House to the form of Protocol, and the interchange of Ambassadors on the basis of the Protocol, and does not Clause 9 of the Protocol expressly say that that Protocol has to be submitted for approval to Parliament? That being so, what right has the right hon. Gentleman to substitute one House of Parliament for the submission to "Parliament" which has been approved at the instigation of the right hon. Gentleman by this House?

Mr. HENDERSON: I do not claim any right to substitute anything other than was intended by 'the Prime Minister's statement. The Prime Minister undertook that it should be discussed in this House, and we have complied with that part of his undertaking, and if I should have used the words "House of Commons" instead of "Parliament," the responsibility is mine.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman has missed my point. He asked the approval of Parliament to a Protocol which provided that this matter should be submitted to Parliament. Does he intend to proceed with these arrangements without having obtained the approval of Parliament in conformity with the Protocol?

Mr. HENDERSON: Yes, His 'Majesty's Government do intend, having, they believe, complied with the undertaking which the Prime Minister gave to the House.

Mr. MOND: Does the Foreign Secretary hold that he Las complied with the terms of his own Protocol?

Mr. HENDERSON: Yes, I do.

Mr. THURTLE: Is it not a fact that this House is the only really representative institution?

Mr. MOND: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that a Session of Parliament is a Recess? When he drafts a State document, ought he not to see that he does not misuse well-known language?

Commander LOCKER-LAMPSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman afraid of a Debate in the other House?

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is this the result—

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

Commander LOCKER-LAMPSON: May I ask—

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

Mr. SPEAKER: Does the hon. and galland Member rise to a point of Order?

Commander LOCKER-LAMPSON: Yes. I only wanted to ask whether I could put a question and why I should be howled down?

Mr. SPEAKER: I am doing my best to enable the hon. and gallant Member to be heard.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: On a point of Order.

Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. de Rothschild.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: It has been quite impossible to hear.

Mr. SPEAKER: Mr. de Rothschild.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: On this point of Order.

Mr. SPEAKER: There is no point of Order. Mr. de Rothschild.

CHINA AND RUSSIA.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now make a statement as to the present position in Manchuria; and what replies have been received in. response to the representations made to the Chinese and Soviet Governments calling their attention to their obligations under the Kellogg Pact?

Captain EDEN: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has yet received any reply from the Soviet Government or the Chinese Government
to his joint representations with the Government of the United States of America in respect of the situation in Manchuria?

Captain MACDONALD: 26.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a reply has been received from the Soviet Government to the representations made to it respecting its obligations under the Kellogg Pact in connection with affairs in Manchuria; if so, whether he can state its nature; and whether the Powers concerned intend to make further representations on the matter?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: 34.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply the Government has received to their message to the Soviet Republic as to that Government's breach of the terms of the Kellogg Pact with regard to the strained relations existing between Russia and China?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: I have received the text of the reply of the Chinese Government and a telegraphic summary of that of the Soviet Government. As they have already appeared in the Press, I will, with the hon. Members' permission, circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The Chinese and Soviet authorities are now carrying on negotiations, and I do not, as at present advised, contemplate taking any further steps. I have no knowledge of the attitude of other Powers in this respect. There has been no recrudescence of military activity.

Sir K. WOOD: Is it a fact that the Soviet Government, in their reply, stated that they regarded the representations that had been made to them as unjustifiable interference, and that it was an unfriendly act on the part of our Government?

Mr. HENDERSON: Yes, but I do not think that arises out of this question.

Sir F. HALL: Is that the sort of reply the right hon. Gentleman would expect from such a friendly nation?

Following is the text:

"(a) Chinese Government's Reply.
Throughout the present dispute with Soviet Russia the National Government has maintained a peaceful attitude and refrained from adopting any hostile military actions except for purpose of self-protection as may he attested by established facts. Being a co-signatory of the Treaty for the
renunciation of war the National Government circularised other signatories of aforesaid Treaty on 20th August, 1929, declaring that China would, apart from adopting measures for self-protection in defence of her territorial sovereignty against any external invasions, faithfully abide by Article 2 of the aforesaid Treaty for the solution of international disputes by pacific means, and that she was ready at any time within reasonable limits to negotiate with the Soviet Government for the settlement of the present dispute. Such declaration is in complete harmony with the intent of the note under reply. The National Government has always reposed implicit confidence in aforesaid Treaty and desisted from acting in any way contrary to its spirit. It will continue to adhere to its reiterated policy.
(Signed) CHENG-TING T. WANG,
Nanking, 4th December, 1929.

"(b) Summary of Soviet Government's Reply.
The reply to the British Government emphasizes the peaceful policy of the Soviet and the provocative policy of Nanking, especially by its attack on the Eastern Chinese Railway and on the Russian frontier. The measures taken by the Red Army are entirely in self-defence and in no way are a breach of the Paris agreement. The reply states that the British application took place at the moment when the Soviet and Mukden Governments had already agreed upon a number of conditions and are carrying on direct negotiations which open the way to the possibility of a speedy solution of the conflict. This application must be regarded as an unjustifiable pressure on negotiations and can in no way he regarded as a friendly act. The reply disputes the right of any one state or group of states to act as the guardian of the Pact and states that the conflict with China can only be solved by direct negotiations on conditions with which China is acquainted and Mukden already has accepted and that no interference in the negotiations or conflict can be allowed.

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT.

SUDAN (EGYPTIAN TROOPS).

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any consultation took place between His Majesty's Government and the Government of the Sudan as to the policy of allowing the return of the Egyptian troops to the Sudan; and, if so, did the latter concur with the proposals to that end put forward in the treaty?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: The answers to both parts of the hon. Member's question are in the affirmative.

TREATY.

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: 35.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, seeing that Nahas Pasha, the leader of the Wafd, has proposed a visit to London to confer with him on the details of the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty, he will state whether he will adhere to the terms he laid down as representing the limit in the way of British concessions to Egypt?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: I have no knowledge of the projected visit to which the hon. and gallant Member refers. Nor have I anything to add to the answer given to the hon. Member for Eastbourne on the 4th of December, that the policy of His Majesty's Government regarding the proposed Anglo-Egyptian Treaty remains unchanged.

Brigadier-General BROWN: May I take it that the representations published in the newspapers are quite untrue as to the communications going on with the Government?

Mr. HENDERSON: I do not know to which reports the hon. and gallant Gentleman refers.

CONSULAR SERVICE (WEST AFRICA AND SENEGAL).

Captain CAZALET: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the conditions of service in the West African and Senegalese Consular service are not the same as those enjoyed by the West African Colonial service; and whether he intends to bring the Consular service up to the same standard as the Colonial?

Mr. GILLETT (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I am aware that there is a difference in treatment, but the reason is that officers in the Colonial service as a rule spend their whole official career in one or other of the West Coast colonies, whereas Consular officers who serve at the two Consular posts on the West Coast proper, namely, Dakar and Monrovia, do BO only for a portion of their career, and after a period of service at either of these posts endeavours are made to give such officers a term at a healthy post. Moreover, West Coast Consular posts are classed, together with certain other Consular posts in different
parts of the world, as "unhealthy" both for purposes of pension and leave of absence, and officers enjoy more favourable treatment as regards repayment of a proportion of travelling expenses on leave than officers serving elsewhere It will be seen that the conditions of service are thus quite different, and I do not propose to make any alteration in the existing Consular Regulations.

Captain CAZALET: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Lord Privy Seal in this House, on several occasions, has expressed very strong views as to the advisability of changing the 18 months' tour into a 15 months' tour for those engaged in this service, and will he consider looking into this matter?

Mr. GILLETT: I was not aware of that fact, but I will certainly look into it and see what can be done.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Will the hon. Gentleman also look into the question from the point of view of the consular officers out there? Alter all, if the climate is unhealthy, surely it does not matter whether you are there all your life or only two or three years, you ought to get the same terms.

Mr. GILLETT: I am afraid I cannot change the climate. If the hon. and gallant, Member has any special representations to make to me on the subject, I shall be glad to consider them.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

INDEMNITY (APPLICATION) ACT (COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS).

Mr. LAMBERT: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when it is proposed to carry into effect the recommendations made three years ago by the Advisory Committee appointed under the China Indemnity (Application) Act, 1925, having regard to the fact that a specially constituted committee rejected the suggestion that the funds should be retained temporarily in consequence of the disturbed state of China?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: As I informed the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Smith-Carrington) on the 20th November last, new proposals are now under consideration. They are based on the Advisory Committee's Report, but in
some respects they differ from its recommendations owing to changed circumstances.

Mr. LAMBERT: When may we expect a decision?

Mr. HENDERSON: I cannot give any definite reply.

BRITISH NATIONALS.

Captain MACDONALD: 27.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information to give the House in regard to the present position in China in so far as it affects the property of British nationals?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: Following on a mutiny of troops at Pukow, opposite Nanking, President Chiang Kai-shek disarmed the guards left in Nanking by certain generals of whose loyalty he was doubtful, and arrested their civilian staffs, and martial law was proclaimed. Measures were at once taken for the despatch of British naval reinforcements and preparations made for the evacuation in case of need of women and children. A critical situation has since developed owing to the revolt of troops stationed on the Shanghai-Nanking Railway, about mid-way between the two cities.
In view of these developments, His Majesty's Consul-General at Nanking has been instructed that, in the event of danger, he should at once order the withdrawal of women and children. There are at present two British warships at Nanking and His Majesty's Ship "Suffolk" is due there to-day and another cruiser, His Majesty's Ship "Berwick," is due there to-morrow.
I have no information as to the declaration of martial law at Shanghai. At present, three British warships are there, and a flotilla leader and two destroyers are on their way there from Hong Kong. All refitting in the Hong Kong dockyard is being expedited and overtime is being worked. Arrangements are in hand for the transfer of one battalion from Hong Kong to Shanghai should the situation demand it.
I have no information that British property has been interfered with nor endangered elsewhere, except perhaps at Ichang. A small body of rebels approached that place and preparations
were made to evacuate foreigners in case of need. The latest reports show that the defence of Ichang has received reinforcements, and after continuous fighting the rebels have been repulsed. No immediate trouble is foreseen there, but as a precaution, women and children either remained afloat or concentrated on the river front last night.

Captain MACDONALD: Has any information been received to the effect that this situation is largely due to Soviet propaganda?

Sir LAMING WORTHINGTONEVANS: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has had any communicacation with Mr. Eugene Chen?

Mr. ALBERY: Is it a fact that His Majesty's Government are taking the necessary steps to protect British interests in China similar to those which were taken by the late Government?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

TARIFF TRUCE (CONFERENCE).

Mr. HANNON: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can inform the House of any measures adopted by other countries to translate political agreements into economic agreements; and if positive results have yet been reported to the League secretariat at Geneva?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the resolution passed by the Assembly of the League of Nations in September directing the Economic Committee of the League to draw up a preliminary draft convention for the conclusion of a tariff truce. The Committee have concluded their labours, and His Majesty's Government have decided to be represented at a preliminary conference of delegates to discuss it. This conference will meet, subject to the consent of the Council at their session in January, about the end of that month. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will represent His Majesty's Government.

Mr. HANNON: Does this mean that in fiscal policy the hands of this country are to be tied, while foreign countries are to be free to manipulate their tariffs as they please?

Mr. HENDERSON: The hon. Member must put that question on the Order Paper; I have answered the question which is before us.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether at this Conference the Government will raise the question of bounties on exports as well as of tariff restrictions?

Mr. HENDERSON: I have already said that the Conference is to consider the Report, and, if that is part of the Report, no doubt it will receive consideration.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an assurance that, unless the question of bounties on exports is dealt with, the Government will not tie the hands of this country?

Mr. HENDERSON: If the right hon. Gentleman will place that question upon the Order Paper, I will give him an official reply?

ARGENTINA.

Mr. HURD: 20.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, in view of the tariff concessions proposed by the Argentine Government, he will state with what countries Argentina has most-favoured-nation treaties?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: According to the information at my disposal, Argentina has treaties containing a most-favoured-nation clause with the following countries: Bolivia, Brazil, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Japan, Norway, Spain, Sweden and the United States.

Mr. HURD: Does that mean that any concession in the Silk Duties in Argentina will he extended to our chief rivals?

Mr. HENDERSON: I am afraid that that is too important a question to be answered now, and I must have notice of it.

Mr. LESLIE BOYCE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the Presidential decree is merely a trap, and that it is designed to prejudice—[Interruption].

Mr. HURD: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the
present position of negotiations with Argentina following upon the D'Abernon Mission?

Mr. GILLETT: I have been asked to reply. As regards the duties in the Argentine on British artificial silk goods, the position is as stated in the answer which the President of the Board of Trade gave on the 21st November to the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir J. Power). The trading agreement has been signed, but the arrangements for bringing it into operation are still under discussion.

Mr. HURD: Will the hon. Gentleman say exactly what undertaking has been given by the British Government to Argentina?

Mr. GILLETT: If the hon. Member refers to the Declaration, that has not yet been made; the answer to the question to which I have referred stated at the end that the terms and exact scope of the Declaration are still under consideration.

Mr. HURD: The Agreement has been signed, but what has been the understanding?

Mr. GILLETT: I think, as a matter of fact, that there are two points in negotiation with Argentina; one is the Agreement, and the other is the arrangement under which the British Government are going to make a Declaration, and, in return for that, there is to be a certain alteration in the Silk Duties. I do not know to which the hon. Member was referring, hut I was referring to the Declaration which has to be made.

Mr. HURD: Can we have a clear statement on the whole subject?

Mr. ALBERY: 50.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether His Majesty's Government have yet made the required declaration to the Argentine Government regarding the non-imposing of duties or restrictions to the importation of certain Argentine food produce; and, if so, whether he can now state the terms and exact scope of the declaration?

Mr. GILLETT: The answer is in the negative.

Mr. ALBERY: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the trade arrangements in
connection with this declaration are already in force, or whether they will have to wait?

Mr. GILLETT: They will have to await a final settlement between the Governments.

Mr. ALBERY: Can the hon. Gentleman give the House any idea when this declaration is likely to be signed?

Mr. GILLETT: I hope very shortly, but I am afraid I do not know more than that.

ANGLO-FRENCH WEST AFRICAN CONVENTION.

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: 23.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Anglo-French West African Convention of 1898 is still in force; if so, when it expires; and whether any decision has been reached as to its renewal?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: The Anglo-French West African Convention of the 14th June, 1898, is still in force. The only Article, for which any provision is made, regarding expiry or denunciation is Article 9, which grants to British subjects and French citizens, their goods, and the products of their respective countries similar tariff treatment in certain defined areas in West Africa. This Article will remain in force until the expiry of one year from the date of its denunciation by either of the contracting Powers, and since it is still in force, the question of its renewal does not arise.

IMPORT AND EXPORT PROHIBITIONS (INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION).

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 24.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the International Convention of 1927 for the abolition of import and export prohibitions is yet in force; and, if not, whether any steps have been taken by the Governments which have ratified the convention to encourage additional ratifications?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative, but a conference is now meeting in Paris, at which His Majesty's Government are represented, to decide whether the Convention should be brought into force, although the
necessary number of ratifications have not yet been deposited. At the last Assembly, the British delegation supported a Danish resolution to the effect that a commission be set up by the Council and the Assembly to accelerate the ratification of all League conventions.

CANADA (ANTI-DUMPING REGULATIONS).

Mr. HANNON: 44.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he has had official notification of the recent change in the anti-dumping regulations of the Dominion of Canada; and what steps he has taken to make the change known to British exporters?

Mr. GILLETT: A telegram conveying this information was sent by His Majesty's Trade Commissioner to my Department on 15th October. The particulars were published in the Board of Trade Journal on 17th October.

Mr. HANNON: Has the hon. Gentleman made any representations to the Canadian Government of the importance to the British exporters of the abolition of the old 5 per cent. difference between the market value price in this country and the import price in Canada?

Mr. GILLETT: Perhaps my hon. Friend will give me notice of that question.

COTTON INDUSTRY (INQUIRY).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether the inquiry into the cotton industry is expected to report before the commencement of the Five-Power Naval Conference; and, if not, whether he intends to appoint a substitute for the First Lord of the Admiralty on the cotton inquiry, seeing that he has been chosen as a delegate to the Five-Power Conference?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative. In view of the large amount of evidence already taken, I do not think that there would be any advantage in appointing a substitute member.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Can the Prime Minister say when he expects the report of the committee to be available for Members?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am afraid I cannot say how long it will take.

RUSSIA (CREDITS).

Major McKENZIE WOOD: 52.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department the number and value of the contracts in respect of exports to Russia which have been entered into under the exports credit scheme since the operation of the scheme was extended to Russia, and the approximate financial terms granted; and the general nature of the goods which have been the subject of these contracts?

Mr. GILLETT: The number of Russian contracts entered into up to and including the 7th instant is 22, and the total value £363,930. It has always been the practice not to disclose the terms and conditions on which guarantees are given. I regret, therefore, that I am unable to supply the hon. and gallant Member with details. In regard to the last part of the question, a general description of the goods is machinery, textiles, metals, coal and chemicals.

Mr. MILLS: Could the hon. Gentleman give the House some idea as to the maximum time that the Committee are now giving for contracts of this kind?

Major WOOD: Are any foodstuffs included in these contracts?

Mr. GILLETT: I do not think that the present figures indicate any considerable amount of food.

EXPORT CREDITS.

Mr. R. A. TAYLOR: 53.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if he has recently made any fresh appointments to the Advisory Committee under the Export Credits Scheme; and the present number and names of the Committee?

Mr. GILLETT: With regard to the names of the Export Credits Guarantee Committee, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on the 4th November to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, West (Mr. W. J. Brown). Since then I have invited my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Central Division of Portsmouth (Captain W. Hall) and Mr. W. R. Blair, of the Co-operative Wholesale Society, to serve on this Committee, and they have accepted.

Mr. R. A. TAYLOR: 54.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department what steps he has taken to ensure that the maximum use of the Export Credits Department for the purpose of providing additional employment; and whether he has received any recent complaints from responsible exporters that the present terms and practice need revision?

Mr. GILLETT: Advantage is constantly taken of the assistance generally afforded by the chambers of commerce, the banks and the Press to bring the Export Credits Guarantee Scheme to the notice of exporters throughout the country. A branch office has been opened in Manchester, and frequent visits are paid to other centres by officials of the Department. With regard to the second part of the question, some complaints have been received, but business continues to increase. If my hon. Friend will bring to my notice any special cases, I shall be glad to give them my consideration.

Mr. TAYLOR: Will my hon. Friend see to it that the Committee consider these proposals from the point of view of creating employment, which is the only justification for the Act being on the Statute Book?

Mr. GILLETT: I think that the Committee always have that consideration before them.

Mr. MILLS: Has the hon. Gentleman had before him within the last 10 days the question of an order coming from the Dartford Division of Kent which has not received the necessary consideration as to time?

Mr. MACKINDER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that complaints have been made that unless the answer is received by return of post business is lost, and that very often the reply does not come until after two or three days?

Mr. GILLETT: I am aware that some complaints of that kind have been made, but it is almost impossible to obtain the information as rapidly as the applicants desire.

Mr. KELLY: 55.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether it is intended to make any change in the personnel of the Committee set up by the last Government to deal with grants under the Trade Facilities Act?

Mr. GILLETT: As the power to give guarantees under the Trade Facilities Act expired in March, 1927, I understand my hon. Friend's question to refer to the Export Credits Guarantee Department. I would accordingly refer him to the answer which I have to-day given to the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. R. A. Taylor).

LEAGUE OF NATIONS (OPTIONAL CLAUSE).

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: 25.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can now state when the promised White Paper on the optional Clause will be available for the information of Members?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: I hope that this White Paper will be available for Members on Thursday.

PALESTINE (MANDATE AND BALFOUR DECLARATION).

Mr. de ROTHSCHILD: 33.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government have made any promises or pledges to the Arab-speaking populations of Palestine or neighbouring countries which invalidate in any way the Balfour Declaration of 2nd November, 1917, or the clauses of the Mandate for Palestine as approved by the League of Nations?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Dr. Drummond Shiels): I have been asked to answer. The position in regard to this question was fully stated in the White Paper (Cmd. 1700) of 1922, to which I would refer the hon. Member. His Majesty's Government have always held that there is nothing in their pledges that could invalidate the Balfour Declaration or conflict with the terms of the Mandate.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: On a point of Order. May we have that answer repeated? It has been perfectly impossible to hear what was said.

Mr. de ROTHSCHILD: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the Arab leaders that this is the policy of the Government?

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is it not the case that on 24th October, 1915, Sir Henry McMahon made a declaration stating
I am empowered in the name of the British Government to recognise and support the independence of the Arabs within the limits of the boundaries proposed by King Hussein
and that these limits included Palestine?

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: On a point of Order. This is a very important matter, and neither I nor any of my Friends could hear the reply.

Mr. de ROTHSCHILD: May I have a reply to my question?

Dr. SHIELS: As regards the first supplementary question, I think it is true to say that the facts which I have stated are perfectly well known. The position is that which the British Government have always taken up in this matter. In regard to the second supplementary question, the pledge to which my hon. and gallant Friend referred was not made to the Palestinian Arabs, and the British Government have always taken the view that Palestine was excluded from that pledge.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Was it not definitely stated in a letter from Sir Henry McMahon to King Hussein that they were promised independence for Arab territories and that the promise included Palestine and that has always been the Arab point of view?

PORTUGUESE WEST AFRICA (BRITISH SEAMAN'S ARREST).

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 36.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can now state whether the Portuguese Government have replied to the representations made by His Majesty's Ambassador at Lisbon as long ago as January last regarding the arrest on the charge of theft of £1 of Mr. A. J. Brewer, who was detained for nine months while awaiting trial at Portuguese West Africa and subsequently sentenced to 300 days' imprisonment and £18 fine or another 90 days' imprisonment; and if he is now in a position to make a statement about this matter?

Mr. A. HENDERSON: The discussions on this case with the Portuguese Govern-
ment have, I fear, been proceeding very slowly and I am unable at the moment to make any statement. But I intend to take up the matter with the Portuguese Ambassador at an interview which has been arranged for to-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

COSHAM HOSPITAL.

Mr. SHILLAKER: 37.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he has received the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Cosham Hospital and its administration; and if it is proposed to make it available to Members?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. F. O. Roberts): I have now received the Report referred to wad have caused it to be printed. Copies will be available to Members at the Vote Office to-morrow.

TUBERCULOSIS (TREATMENT ALLOWANCES).

Mr. KINLEY: 38.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he will ascertain the number, on any date, of tubercular ex-service men who, though certified as unfit for work, are not receiving treatment allowances?

Mr. ROBERTS: I regret that I have no means of obtaining this information. Such certification would ordinarily be done by practitioners acting under the Health Insurance Acts.

Mr. KINLEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult his medical advisers as to the necessity for putting this matter on a proper and just footing, and is he aware that this is a matter of life or death to the ex-service men concerned?

Mr. ROBERTS: Yes, I shall be very happy to give consideration to the point which has been raised.

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: Are we to understand that once an ex-service man gets on the panel under the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Pensions loses all further interest in the case?

Mr. ROBERTS: No, Sir.

WIDOWS' PENSIONS (MRS. PLANT, GRIMSBY).

Mr. WOMERSLEY: 39.
asked the Minister of Pensions if he will give further consideration to- the application of Mrs.
E. Plant, of 10, Elm Avenue, Yarborough Road, Grimsby, the widow of the late Company-Sergeant-Major A. L. Plant, Cheshire Regiment, for an increase of pension; if he is aware that the late Company-Sergeant-Major Plant applied for a pension in May, 1922; was examined by the Pension Ministry's medical officer on 3rd July, 1922, and died on 5th July, 1922; and that an appeal was lodged in August, 1922, and the widow was informed that, as death had occurred before the appeal could be heard, the claim could not be considered?

Mr. ROBERTS: Mrs. Plant is already in receipt of pension on the alternative pension scale, which takes full account of her husband's pre-war earnings; and as this is the maximum scale admissible under the Warrant no increase of the pension is admissible.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: Can I have at answer to the latter part of my question respecting the man's appeal, which could not take place because he died two days before it could be heard?

Mr. ROBERTS: My information is that the man died before a decision could be arrived at; therefore, there was no opportunity of lodging an appeal.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: Has the widow to suffer simply because her husband died two or three days before the appeal could be heard? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer;"] May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to take this and many other similar cases into consideration when he is bringing in his amending Bill to deal with pensions?

Mr. ROBERTS: Yes, I am willing to-take any point into consideration which will be for the benefit of those who are suffering; but I am informed that this case has been fully considered, and the widow has been awarded a proper pension under the warrants.

Mr. LEES: In dealing with these cases, was the right hon. Gentleman dealing with the law as it then existed?

CENTRAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

Major COHEN: 40.
asked the Minister' of Pensions, whether he will inform the House when the Central Advisory Committee, established under Section 3 of the War Pensions Act, 1921, last met; the names of the members of the committee
and whether this committee was consulted by him in connection with the scheme recently announced regarding the method by which claims submitted by officers and men outside the seven years' time limit would be dealt with?

Mr. ROBERTS: I understand that the committee last met in November, 1927. The committee consists of 22 persons, and, in order to economise the time of the House, I propose to print the names of the members with the OFFICIAL REPORT. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative. The arrangements in question were considered in the first instance and determined by the Government itself before announcement to this House.

Major COHEN: Seeing that the members of the committee were mostly members of the local War Pensions Committee, and that they have to run the scheme suggested by the Minister, does the right hon. Gentleman not think that, it would have been right and courteous to have first consulted them?

Mr. ROBERTS: I am afraid that I cannot add anything to the answer that I have already given.

Major TRYON: Is it not the case that this committee never met when the right hon. Gentleman was in office in 1924 or this year?

Mr. ROBERTS: I can assure the House that, the committee will meet whenever it is necessary.

Following are the names of the members:

CENTRAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE—(6th December, 1929).

List of Members.

I. Non-Official.

(A) Representatives of War Pensions Committees:—

M. L. Best., Esq.
Alderman D. Davision, O.B.E., J.P.
Mrs. A. Holtby, C.C.
Stamford Hutton, Esq., O.B.E. J.P.
Miss E. H. Kelly, C.B.E., J.P.
T. W. H. McDougal, Esq., C.B.E., J.P., of Raeshaw.
A. Hume Nicholl, Esq., C.B.E.
Miss G. J. Trubshaw, C.B.E.
Walter Peel, Esq., C.B.E., J.P.

(B)Representatives of Ex-service Men (two vacancies):

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton Pownall, O.B.E., M.P.
Major Sir Archibald Sinclair, Bt., C.M.G., M.P.
J. J. Tinker, Esq., M.P.
*Lieut.-Colonel G. It. Crosfield, D.S.O., T.D.
*N. M. Price, Esq.
*A. G. Webb, Esq.
"Captain T. Woodhead.

II. Official Members.

Sir George Chrystal, K.C.B.
Sir Adair Hore, K.B.E., C.B.
W. Sanger, Esq., C.B., J.P.
G. H. Bowler, Esq., M.B.E.

* Appointed on recommendation of British Legion.

SPECIAL GRANTS.

Major COHEN: 41.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether officers and men granted an allowance under the scheme recently announced in connection with claims submitted outside the seven years' time limit will be eligible to receive assistance under all the regulations of the Special Grants Committee; and whether widows of men who at the date of death were in receipt of an allowance, as mentioned above, will also he eligible for consideration under the Special Grants Committee regulations?

Mr. ROBERTS: No extension of the scope of the Committee's regulations is contemplated.

MEDICAL AND SURGICAL TREATMENT.

Captain Sir GEORGE BOWYER: 42.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he intends to take over all medical and surgical treatment of ex-service men, providing, where necessary, full-time medical officers for the purpose?

Mr. ROBERTS: My Department has authority under the Royal Warrants to provide such treatment only as is not otherwise provided. I could not, therefore, adopt the course suggested by the hon. and gallant Member without duplicating other statutory arrangements for the provision of treatment which are in operation under the National Health Insurance Acts and other enactments.

DISABLED MEN (EMPLOYMENT).

Sir G. BOWYER: 43.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he intends to make his Ministry responsible for the employment of all men so disabled as to be unable to take their place in the labour market?

Mr. ROBERTS: My Department, has, I fear, neither the means nor the equipment at its disposal which would enable it to undertake the additional task suggested.

Sir G. BOWYER: When did this cease to be part of the policy of the Government?

Mr. ROBERTS: I am afraid that I could not answer that question off-hand.

Sir G. BOWYER: Is the Minister of Pensions not aware that on page 273 of the Labour Year Book for 1924, the words contained in my question occur verbatim?

Mr. ROBERTS: I can only congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend upon his memory being better than mine.

IRISH FREE STATE (TREATY).

Sir K. WOOD: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Irish Free State has recently made any communication to the Government concerning the Irish treaty or its position thereunder or its relations with this country?

The PRIME MINISTER: No communication of the nature indicated in the right hon. Member's question has recently been received by the Government here.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is the Prime Minister not going to make some representations to Southern Ireland in regard to this matter?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the question en the Paper.

BILLS (DEPARTMENTAL POWERS).

Captain CROOKSHANK: 46.
asked the Prime Minister if he has considered setting up a committee somewhat on the lines of the Estimates Committee in order to examine every Bill on its introduction and to report to the House whether and,
if so, how such a Bill increases the power of the Departments; and, if so, whether he proposes to invite this House to set up such a Standing Committee?

The PRIME MINISTER: The whole question of the powers of the executive both as regards subordinate legislation and quasi-judicial decision is at present under the consideration of a Committee appointed by the Lord Chancellor, with my concurrence, and presided over by Lord Donoughmore. I do not think any step should be taken to prejudge the report which they may present.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree with the suggestion made by the Lord Chief Justice, that a committee of this kind might serve a useful purpose in the interval?

MINISTERS' SALARIES (COMMITTEE).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether the terms of reference of the Committee on Ministerial Emoluments have now been settled; and whether they will include the question of extra payment to certain Members of the House of Commons who are not members of His Majesty's Government?

The PRIME MINISTER: As regards the first part of the question, the general scope of the inquiry has been settled, but not the actual terms of reference. As regards the second part, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given on Tuesday last to my hon. Friend the Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman). Up to the present I have received no indication that there is a general desire for an inquiry into the question raised.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does that mean that the expression "general scope" does not include the question of the payment of salaries to Leaders of the Opposition?

The PRIME MINISTER: "General scope" is the form of words that I used in accepting the suggestion made by the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby), but the actual terms of reference have not been settled.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does that mean that it applies only to Ministers' emoluments, and not to those of Leaders of the Opposition?

COAST PROTECTION BILL.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: 49.
asked the Prime Minister when he proposes to take the Money Resolution for the Coast Protection Bill?

The PRIME MINISTER: In the present state of Parliamentary business, it will not be possible to take this Resolution before the Christmas Adjournment.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Is it the intention to drop the Coast Protection Bill altogether?

The PRIME MINISTER: Oh, no.

SHELL FISHERIES, NORFOLK.

Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: 56.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has conferred with the public authorities of the districts between King's Lynn and Cromer with a view to increasing the shell fisheries, as a result of the information provided by the Conway Research Station Report, in regard to mussel fisheries in particular?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Noel Buxton): The Report referred to by the hon. Member deals with the question of re-opening mussel beds which have been closed on account of pollution. I have no evidence that this has taken place in the districts referred to. There has been no occasion, therefore, for me to confer with the local authorities.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: 57.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will facilitate, by loan or grant, the reviving of the oyster beds on the North Norfolk coast, in view of the favourable Report of the recent inquiry?

Mr. BUXTON: It would be open to local authorities interested, or an association of persons not trading for profit, to apply for a grant or loan from the Development Fund for the purpose referred to in the question. I would suggest, however, that it would be a considerable advantage to have in the first place the benefit of the opinion of the Sub-Committee on the Fishing Industry,
presided over by my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry, which will no doubt include the development of oyster fisheries in the scope of its inquiry.

Mr. SAMUEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to receive an application for a Provisional Order, and is he aware that a leading firm of wholesale fish merchants are willing to provide sufficient capital if a Provisional Order is granted?

Mr. BUXTON: I have not had that information, but I shall be very glad to deal with it when I get it.

Mr. SAMUEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman ready to receive an application for a Provisional Order?

Mr. BUXTON: I shall be very glad to do so.

Mr. SAMUEL: Will he receive it—[Interruption.]

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member's question has been answered.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

SMALL HOLDINGS.

Mr. FRANK OWEN: 58.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will introduce legislation requiring county councils to let small holdings at the same agricultural rent per acre as they paid before they were taken over for small holdings?

Viscount ELMLEY: 61.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will introduce a Measure to acquire land wherever possible for letting to smallholders at a fair rent?

Mr. N. BUXTON: Statutory powers already exist whereby county councils can acquire land for letting to smallholders at fair rents. In cases where no additional equipment is provided, councils have power to let land at the same rent per acre as was paid before it was taken over for small holdings.

Mr. OWEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this Act has completely broken down just because it is impossible for smallholders to obtain land at a fair rent?

Mr. BUXTON: The rents are fair in relation to the equipment that has to be provided in connection with the land.

Mr. OWEN: 59.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if the 115 small holdings provided for in the approved schemes of the Ministry of Agriculture this year constitute the limit of the policy of the Ministry in this direction for this year?

Mr. BUXTON: No, Sir. Since the figure mentioned was given to the House a month ago, further schemes submitted by county councils have been approved which will provide an additional 25 holdings, making 140 in all. I regret that many of the county councils and councils of county boroughs, who are the authorities responsible for the provision of small holdings, have not been more active. The Ministry does not itself possess powers for the acquisition of land for the purpose.

Mr. OWEN: If the county councils will not take the land, will the Ministry take powers to do so?

Mr. BUXTON: That is another question.

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: Is the inactivity of the local authorities due in any degree to difficulty in obtaining capital from loans from the Treasury authorities in order to purchase this land?

Mr. BUXTON: No, Sir.

Mr. OWEN: 60.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware that there are 9,327 applicants still unprovided with small holdings; and whether he proposes to make any provision for them?

Mr. BUXTON: The figure quoted includes 3,782 applications which have been either withdrawn or rejected as unsuitable. I regret that the ample powers possessed by county councils and councils of county boroughs for the provision of small holdings for their approved applicants are not more widely used, and I am prepared to offer the councils the fullest financial assistance possible withing the limit of the Ministry's statutory powers. As I have just stated, the Ministry itself has no power to acquire land for the provision of small holdings.

Mr. DAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman communicate with the county councils and suggest to them that they adopt that procedure?

Mr. ALPASS: Could not the object of the hon. Member who put this question be more readily secured by changing the representation on the county council?

POTATO INDUSTRY.

Lord FERMOY: 64.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware that the cost per ton wholesale of potatoes in East Anglia is from £3 to £3 10s. per ton and that the retail cost in London is about £8; and will he inquire into this matter?

Mr. N. BUXTON: For the purposes of illustration, the wholesale prices quoted by the Noble Lord would seem to be broadly representative of certain varieties. As regards retail prices, these are not collected by my Department, and the Ministry of Labour figures do not distinguish varieties. The Noble Lord will appreciate that the costs of distribution are unaffected by changes in wholesale values. Very full information was collected by the Linlithgow Committee regarding the composition of the distributive margin, and further inquiry would, no doubt, be undertaken by the Food Council if thought desirable.

Mr. ROSBOTHAM: 67.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will take immediate action to endeavour to remove the embargo on immune varieties of potatoes entering into the Dominions and the United States of America?

Mr. BUXTON: This matter has been receiving my earnest consideration, and I can assure my hon. Friend that his proposal has not been overlooked.

COST OF PRODUCTION.

Mr. KEDWARD: 66.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his Department has any reliable information on the present cost of production of agricultural produce; and, if not, will he take steps to collect and classify such information and issue it in the form of a White Paper?

Mr. N. BUXTON: Investigations into the cost of production of agricultural produce are not made by my Department but by the Universities and Agricultural Colleges which receive grants from the Ministry. The results of such investigations are readily obtainable in the publications of these institutions. The titles of such publications can be obtained from the Ministry.

Mr. KEDWARD: Does the right hon. Gentleman get any report from the colleges to wham the gives grants?

Mr. BUXTON: Yes. And the Ministry will gladly furnish information to those who desire it.

WHEAT CROP (PURCHASE).

Lord FERMOY: 65.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he has received a copy of the resolution passed by members of the National Farmers' Union calling on the Government to purchase the wheat crop on an average cost of production and profit basis, and offering assistance in preparing and working such a scheme; and what is his attitude on such a proposal?

Mr. N. BUXTON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative; the second part does not, therefore, arise.

GOVERNMENT POLICY.

Brigadier-General BROWN: 68.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the setting up of import boards, to control prices and to secure to the farmer a stable market in which to sell his produce, is still part of his policy; and, if so, will he hasten the necessary legislation so as to deal with the situation that has arisen from the dumping of German cereals on our market?

Mr. N. BUXTON: The details of this proposal are at present being carefully examined. I am not in a position to make any statement as to legislation on the subject.

Brigadier-General BROWN: Seeing that import boards were part of the policy outlined in "Labour and the Nation" to deal with such emergencies, does the Socialist party no longer believe in its agricultural policy?

Mr. BUXTON: That is not to be inferred.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: When is the right hon. Gentleman going to declare his policy?

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.

Mr. MATTERS: 69.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he has been able to ascertain whether the active virus of foot-and-mouth disease is introduced to this
country in the marrow of the bones of chilled beef imported from the Argentine Republic?

Mr. N. BUXTON: The experiments of the Foot-and-mouth Disease Research Commitee have shown that the virus of foot-and-mouth disease remains active in bone marrow which has been kept at a low temperature for 76 days. While it is, therefore, theoretically possible for the disease to be introduced into this country in the way suggested, there is no positive evidence that this has, in fact, happened.

Mr. MATTERS: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been called to a statement in a London journal that this committee has determined that infection from the Argentine Republic is coming into the country in the manner indicated by my question?

Mr. BUXTON: There is no evidence to that effect.

Viscountess ASTOR: Would it not be safer to grant the troops home-grown meat, seeing the danger in imported Argentine meat?

LAND DRAINAGE.

Mr. ALBERY: 70.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce early in the new year any legislation calculated to improve the position of the agricultural industry?

Mr. N. BUXTON: Yes, Sir. As I have already announced, the Government proposes to introduce as soon as possible a comprehensive Land Drainage Bill which will enable schemes to be undertaken to improve the condition of a very considerable area of waterlogged land and so increase its productivity.

Mr. ALBERY: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it will serve any useful purpose to increase the land available for cultivation when the present land can only be worked at a loss?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (No. 2) BILL.

Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Labour whether she will furnish to the House an actuarial Report supplementary
to Cd. 3437, showing the full financial effect of any new Clause which may be introduced on behalf of the Government to take the place of Clause 4 of the present Unemployment Bill as introduced?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Miss Bondfield): I propose to lay a White Paper on this matter.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: When will it be laid, and shall we have ample notice both of the terms of the new Clause and of its financial effect before it is taken on the Floor of the House?

Miss BONDFIELD: I shall give as long notice as possible.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Can the right hon. Lady give us some idea of the date when we may expect to have the terms of the new Clause and its financial effect?

Miss BONDFIELD: I shall probably be able to put the terms of the new Clause upon the Order Paper to-morrow night, and the White Paper will be laid at the earliest date.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Does the right hon. Lady propose to proceed with the further Clauses of the Bill before the House knows the new terms of Clause 4?

Miss BONDFIELD: I propose to go on with the Bill, certainly.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: How can we do so if we do not know the terms of the Clause?

Mr. BROCKWAY: Is elementary justice to the character of the unemployed to be determined by financial considerations?

Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN: Has the Prime Minister any information to give us about business?

The PRIME MINISTER: We propose to take down to the Section arranged—the end of Clause 11.

Mr. BALDWIN: Has the Prime Minister any further information to give us about the business for the remainder of the Session?

The PRIME MINISTER: I should be very glad to answer that question if I had had some notice of it. The business will be, roughly, the finishing of the unemployment Insurance Bill, and we hope
to get the Second Reading of the Coal Mines Bill. The minor Orders have already been announced.

Major ELLIOT: How many days has the right hon. Gentleman allotted in that programme for the Report stage of the Unemployment Insurance Bill?

Sir H. SAMUEL: When shall we have the Coal Mines Bill?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Report stage and Third Reading of the Unemployment Insurance Bill, I think, might very well be done in two days. I hope the Coal Mines Bill will be circulated this week.

Major WOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that he does not intend to take Friday for Government business?

Mr. HARRIS: The right hon. Gentleman promised to introduce the Education Bill before the Christmas Recess.

The PRIME MINISTER: The Government will have to take Friday of next week, but not this week.

Major ELLIOT: Do we understand the right hon. Gentleman proposes to dispose of the whole of the Report stage as well as the Third Reading of the really new Bill which we have before us within the same time as he thought reasonable for the Report stage of the old Bill?

The PRIME MINISTER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is wrong in his mathematics because it is an extended time. It is a whole day probably with the Eleven O'clock Rule suspended. When he considers, he will also find that he is not only wrong in his mathematics but very exaggerated in his language when he says a re-draft of Clause 4, so as to make it conform more to the original intention, is a new Bill.

Mr. HARRIS: What does the Prime Minister say about the Education Bill?

The PRIME MINISTER: indicated dissent.

Major ELLIOT: I do not intend to discuss mathematics with the Prime Minister. We were at variance on that before. Not having been in the House, the right hon. Gentleman is unacquainted with the extent to which the Bill has been redrafted. The right hon.
Lady is introducing a new Clause dealing with the demand of Members both above and below the Gangway in the matter of juveniles. That, in itself, is a very large and important issue. That has to be considered as a new Clause, and the re-drafting of Clause 4 means the redrafting of several other Clauses.

The PRIME MINISTER: First of all, the Amendment regarding the juveniles is to be taken in Committee, and not on the Report stage. I was answering a question regarding the Report stage and Third Reading. Secondly, I again think, if I may say so with respect, that my hon. and gallant Friend exaggerates when he says that there are several Clauses materially affected by the redrafting of Clause 4.

Sir H. SAMUEL: As regards the proceedings to-day, can the right hon. Gentleman or the Minister of Labour say what course will be taken with regard to Clauses 5 and 7 in view of the deletion of Clause 4?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes. Clause 5, I think, goes with Clause 4. Clause 5 is only an annulment of a provision in the existing law, and it would be far better to let that go with Clause 4. As regards Clause 7, there is only one of two alternative provisions in Clause 7 affected by the temporary disappearance of Clause 4. As I am dealing with the matter, it will be better to deal with it completely. In Clause 7, page 8, lines 12 to 14, hon. Members will see that one of two alternatives hinges upon Clause 4. It is proposed that that alternative should be taken out now and re-inserted in appropriate form in consequence of the Amendment of Clause 4, as it is to appear, on the Report stage. That will be dealt with on Report. Perhaps if hon. Members will allow me to guide them again, they will find in Clause 15, page 12, lines 16 and 17, another reference to Clause 4. I think that when we get to that Clause it will be advisable to deal with it in the same way as we deal with Clause 7.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: Arising out of the statement about dropping Clause 5, may I call the attention of the Minister to the fact that there is a slight error in the Clause itself; it has been amended by subsequent legislation.

The PRIME MINISTER: That is so. The Minister is aware of that fact.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: May I ask the Prime Minister, without wishing to exaggerate in any way at all, whether he realises that, in the first place, we are putting further business on to the Report stage in connection with Clause 5, Clause 7, and Clause 15. Not only so. When he says that a reasonable amount of time has been given to the Report stage, really two days for Report and Third reading, on broad grounds, cannot be enough now. Clause 4, as is recognised by everybody, is the kernel of the whole Bill. It is recognised on all sides to be the most important part of the whole Bill. The action taken on Thursday last—and I am sure everyone agrees with this—has completely changed the whole structure and purpose of the Bill. From that point of view, it has to be started and debated afresh, and, therefore, I want to put before the right hon. Gentleman that one day for Report and Third Reading is not doing justice to the importance of the Bill.

The PRIME MINISTER: Really, my right hon. Friend must not exaggerate. Clause 4 is not and was never intended to be the kernel of the whole Bill. Clause 4 deals with one of the items which we have been trying to get reformed for years, and Clause 4, as redrafted, will simply carry out more precisely the intention of the original Clause.

Sir WILLIAM MITCHELL-THOMSON: What about the Attorney-General?

The PRIME MINISTER: So far as the Report stage is concerned, two days are more than one day.

Major ELLIOT: There is only one more point. The Prime Minister has pointed out that he is giving us more time. Can he tell us whether in that time is included the time for the Supplementary Estimates which will be necessary, or is this additional? Is that, as well as the other items, to be put into the programme of the business which he has anticipated?

The PRIME MINISTER: There is a Supplementary Estimate that will be required, but not for this Bill. It will be required in respect of past legislation. That will be put down, and will be excepted. It will be separate. As I
have already said, if only I had received notice I might have been able to give more details, but it must be passed before the Consolidated Fund Bill. Then there is the question of providing for the possibility of a deficit on the existing fund, with the £3,500,000 added, if this Bill does not become law before the Christmas vacation. I understand that there will be little danger of that happening before the beginning of February, but the matter is being very carefully considered, and a statement will be made upon it as soon as we get the final report from the Department.

Mr. S. BALDWIN: I am sorry if I have put the right hon. Gentleman to any inconvenience by asking him about future business, but I WAS under the impression that I was expected to ask that question to-day. It is very important for the convenience of the House that we should know at the earliest date possible, and I hope that by repeating the question possibly to-morrow, I may be able to get a complete reply. The two or three points which want clearing up are these: I agree that one or two of the questions which have just been put will be legitimate sources of debate when business begins to-day. I think that certain points of procedure under the Bill now under discussion will come in on the First Motion which is to be moved. But I think that Members of the House will want to know for their own convenience whether they will be spending Christmas in London, or whether they will be able to go home. On that question, we want to know on this side whether we are going to get facilities for the discussion of the two subjects on which we have asked for a debate—Egypt and Singapore. All sections of the House will want to know when the Second Reading of the Coal Mines Bill will be put down, and how long before that Second Reading we shall be able to see the Bill itself? It is perfectly obvious, whether this Bill from anybody's point of view is a good one or a bad one; that it is going to be one of first-class importance to trade and to employment. Therefore, we shall want, all of us, wherever we may sit in this House, to consider most carefully the terms of the Bill, of which we are in complete ignorance at the present moment, before the House of Commons passes to a discussion of it.

The PRIME MINISTER: I shall be very much obliged if the right hon. Gentleman will repeat his question tomorrow. Regarding the Coal Mines Bill, as I have said, it will be circulated this week. The time when its Second Reading will be taken will be determined when the present Bill now before us has left this House. It will follow that Bill.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: With reference to Clause 4, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the Minister stated that she was going to draft a new Clause in consultation with those hon. Members interested in the subject, and whether that still holds?

The PRIME MINISTER: That still holds.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings in Committee on the Unemployment Insurance (No. 2) Bill and the Proceedings on the Third Reading of the Highlands and Islands (Medical Service) Additional Grant Bill be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House proceeded to a Division.

Mr. Parkinson and Mr. Charles Edwards were appointed Tellers for the Ayes; but there being no Members willing to act as Tellers for the Noes, Mr. SPEAKER declared that the Ayes had it.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.

Mr. MILLS: I desire to call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that on three occasions only in this Parliament have questions addressed to the Postmaster-General been reached, and I am asking whether you will give it your attention.

RUSSIA (BRITISH RELATIONS).

Mr. MOND: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
the action of the Government in permitting the British Ambassador to the Union of Soviet Republics to leave for his post before effect has been given to the terms of paragraph 9 of the Protocol.

Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot accept that Motion, as it does not comply with Standing Order No. 10 as regards urgency.

Mr. MOND: In reply to the question of urgency, the Ambassador left yesterday, and this is the very earliest possible moment at which I could have raised the point.

Mr. SPEAKER: Even so, I do not think that it comes within the terms of the Standing Order.

Mr. MOND: On that point, unless the matter is taken now, the Ambassador cannot be recalled before he reaches Moscow.

Captain MACDONALD: Does this not raise an important point of constitutional practice, and is it not very important that this House should have an opportunity of discussing it?

Mr. SPEAKER: I am not prepared to decide on the merits of the question. The only point I have to decide at the moment is the urgency of it from the point of view of Standing Order No. 10.

Captain EDEN: May I call your attention to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary to-day, in reply to a question, for the first time ruled that "Parliament," as expressed in the Protocol, referred only to the House of Commons? Surely, that is a definite matter of urgent public importance.

STATEMENT showing the quantity and value of motor cars imported
into British India during the years shown from the United Kingdom, Canada and the United States
of America.


Country of consignment.
Quantity (Number).


1923–24.
1924–25.
1925–26.
1926–27.
1927–28.


United Kingdom
…
…
1,005
1,682
2,399
2,546
3,600


Canada
…
…
3,290
3,956
4,775
4,476
3,400


United States of America
…
…
2,865
3,106
4,143
4,030
6,031





Value in Rs.


United Kingdom
…
…
45,33,674
60,89,293
77,69,825
80,42,233
1,02,54,925


Canada
…
…
64,56,633
65,54,187
72,46,485
70,19,723
63,17,775


United States of America
…
…
69,44,209
73,45,593
90,51,664
88,99,808
1,34,50,812

RAILWAY CONSTRUCTION.

Sir G. JONES: asked the Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been drawn to the drastic curtailment of capital expenditure on Indian railway construction and to the announcement of the railway member of the Government of India, Sir George Rainy, that in the

Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a matter for Standing Order No. 10. That can be discussed at some other time.

Mr. MOND: In view of the fact that the Ambassador left last night, and we have only this evening had a definite ruling from the Foreign Secretary that he was not proceeding under his own Protocol, but under the terms of the statement made by the Prime Minister, which is quite different, surely that is an urgent matter of public importance which ought to be raised at the first moment?

Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid that I cannot alter my decision.

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (No. 2) BILL.

Considered in Committee [Progress, 5th December.]

[Mr. DUNNICO in the Chair.]

Major ELLIOT: For the convenience of the Committee, would the Minister make a statement as to the position in which we are now? Would it be better for her to move to report Progress in order to have the statement in order? It is merely for the convenience of the Committee that I throw out the suggestion.

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Miss Bondfield): I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee to withdraw Clause 5.

Major ELLIOT: There are on the Paper Amendments to the Clause, and one which my hon. Friends desire to move surely is in order. I would therefore suggest that if the right hon. Lady is not prepared to move to report Progress, I should do so, simply for the purpose of bringing the discussion in order.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Is the hon. and gallant Member moving to report Progress?

Major ELLIOT: Yes. I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
It will be within the recollection of all of us that the Debate last Thursday night proceeded along lines which were not then regular party lines. The situation became somewhat obscure, and, as far as I understand, the learned Attorney-General undertook, in the first place, to withdraw and considerably redraft Sub-section (1) of Clause 4. Subsequently, discussion went on upon Sub-section (2) which, after considerable debate, the Minister agreed—shortly after a speech by the learned Attorney-General stating that certain principles should be adhered to—that these principles should not be adhered to, because, what I may call for convenience, the Hayday formula, should be
accepted. That undoubtedly brought about a position in which the Committee had to consider again Clause 4 from the beginning. Accordingly, after the negativing of various Sub-sections, Clause 4 was negatived as a whole on the Motion of the Minister. I understand that since then the leaders of the Front Government Bench, if I may say so, because the word "leaders" might bring up several awkward questions, which I do not desire to discuss now—but the Government and their supporters held a meeting which, of course, was a private meeting, in which discussion was entered into which we in other parties have no right to inquire at all. Still, information was given then as to the financial effect of the proposals which had been accepted in spirit by the Minister on behalf of the Government in Thursday's Debate. With these proposals it is vital that the Committee as a whole should be acquainted before it can come to any conclusion upon the proposals which the Government are about to lay before them and, undoubtedly, the whole of the Government's attitude must be altered by the concession, if it were a concession, which was made in Thursday's Debate.
I understood a moment ago from the Prime Minister that he did not think there had been any concession. I am sure that was not the opinion of the Committee as a whole, and certainly not the opinion of what I may call the "fourth party." I doubt if it were even the opinion of the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday), whose modesty we all admire in the signal victory he gained over his own Front Bench. The position of the Committee is simply this: The new formula—the Hayday formula, if I may call it so—must have' the effect of adding certain persons to the live register of unemployed. It must have the effect of bringing additional persons on to benefit, or it would have no meaning. We are all agreed about that. Let me put it that for every 100,000 persons who come under the fund an extra amount of £4,000,000 a year comes out of the fund. We have a right to ask the Minister how many people she estimates are coming on the fund as a result of this. Is it 100,000 or 200,000? There were something like 350,000 persons disallowed benefit. Even supposing half of them are reinstated,
that is something in the neighbourhood of 200,000 persons, and that will be a great drain on the fund, which, we have been informed by the Prime Minister, is in so critical a state that it must have money put into it before we rise at Christmas or it, may have to put up its shutters. It is to have an added strain of over £4,000,00 or £8,000,000 a year laid upon it as the result of Thursday night's Debate, and, I may say, as the result of a considerable amount of pressure on the part of hon. and right hon. Members below the Gangway who are very fond of coming down and threatening hon. Members opposite with economy in the abstract and pressing for greater expenditure.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: And your own bench, too!

Major ELLIOT: There was no right hon. Member from this side who spoke in favour of increased expenditure. [An HON. MEMBER: "The same here."] I heard a right hon. Gentleman, a former Home Secretary, speak, and certainly he was not urging the Government to cut down expense in this Bill.

Mr. BROWN: Has the hon. and gallant Gentleman read the speech of the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley), one of the few industrial seats represented on those benches?

Major ELLIOT: I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that there are other industrial Members on this side beside the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley), and while I have the utmost respect, as all have, for the hon. Member for Grimsby, few would say that he held the same position which is held by the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel).

Mr. FOOT: I understand that the speech of the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) had reference simply to the re-drafting of Sub-section (l) of Clause 4.

Major ELLIOT: The right hon. Member for Darwen, no doubt, will speak for himself again. I am more concerned with the position in which the Committee are, and more particularly with the position the fund is in. The case is quite simple. Obviously, for the convenience of all sections of the Committee a state-
ment ought to be made by the Government. We are entitled to ask the Minister of Labour, in all courtesy, if she can furnish us with some approximate estimate as to the result of the redrafting of Clause 4, whether she thinks it will make a difference and, if so, whether she can give an approximate estimate of the difference. Does she think that it is desirable to stand to Clause 5? The Prime Minister said, I think with great force, that Clause 5 goes with Clause 4. Clause 4 has gone, and Clause 5 ought to go along with it. Clause 5 deals with statutory conditions, and repeals the existing protection of the fund. It may be that the Government desire to sweep away every kind of restriction upon the fund, but I do not gather that that is their intention. The Minister of Labour said that she intends to introduce a new Clause 4 and that the new Clause will bring in some sort of restriction upon the payment of benefits out of the fund. If Clause 5 stands there will be no restriction of any kind, not even the elementary restriction to which hon. Members below the Gangway agree, that a man who had been offered a job and refused it should thereupon be disqualified from receiving benefit.
While that is so, the Government ask us to-day to pass Clause 5. to repeal the protection and to trust to a Clause as yet undrafted, without any estimate of its financial consequences, without any statement as to the payments underlying it, which is to be introduced upon the Report stage. So far as we can make out, it has to be passd by Thursday of this week. Here we are at the beginning of the week, no estimate has been made, no White Paper has been laid giving the terms of the Clause, and it is proposed that this Clause, which means a burden of £4,000,000 or £8,000,000 not merely upon the Treasury but upon the fund, of which this House is the trustee, should be passed by the end of this week. Today, Monday, we have no idea whatever nor has the Minister of Labour any idea of the financial consequences which the passing of that Clause will have.
Let us consider the finance which the House of Commons has found for the fund ever since last July. In July we found £3,500,000. In this Bill we are finding £8,000,000 for the transitional period and one million pounds for ad-
ministration. Then there is a further £4,000,000 for new benefits. Those sums amount to £16,500,000. To this amount has to be added, as a result of the debate of last Thursday, a sum of, I suggest, at least £4,000,000 a year. [An HON. MEMBER "How does the hon. and gallant Member arrive at that figure?"] Because right hon. and hon. Members below the Gangway on both sides of the House were under the impression that a great many persons were being kept off the fund by the operation of the Clause as presented by the Minister, and that they would be brought on to the Fund by the operation of the Clause which they desired to be re-drafted. Whether that is so or not was a matter for debate between the Prime Minister and his supporters. The Prime Minister has had a debate with them in private, and it is desirable that the matter should be debated in public. We have given from the Treasury £16,500,000 as a result of decisions arrived at this year, and we are to give at least a further £4,000,000 as a result of Thursday's decision, bringing the total to £20,000,000. We may even have to give £8,000,000 as a result of Thursday's decision.

Mr. E. BROWN: Not from the Treasury.

Major ELLIOT: From the Treasury. This additional sum of new money for the fund, this extra. £4,000,000, if the fund is in the critical state that it is said to be, will come out of a direct Treasury Vote. If that is not so, we ought to have an explanation. These large sums of money have been found, and we are now confronted with the finding of certainly another £4,000,000. Hon. and right hon. Members below the Gangway as well as above the Gangway have asked "Is this the best way to spend another £4,000,000?" Two hon. Members who have an Amendment upon the Order Paper to shorten the waiting period have stated that in their view, the most urgent thing in the administration of the whole fund is to shorten the waiting period.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member is not really discussing the Question before the Committee. I have been quite agreeable to allow certain arguments to be put in support of the Motion to Report Progress, but the hon. and gallant Member must admit that he has gone rather far afield.

Major ELLIOT: I bow to your ruling. I was led away to show that the action of the Committee in dealing with a subject such as the waiting period would be governed by the fact that we have voted away all the money at our disposal. That was the point put by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to his supporters. Therefore the hands of the Committee appear to be tied henceforward. If that argument is not germane to the subject, I do not wish to discuss it further. I do say, however, that we are entitled to ask from the Minister of Labour a clear statement as to the position in which the Committee finds itself, and we hope that she will be able to give us that. If we are to function as a Council of State, or anything of the kind, we must have the facts laid before us, and we should not be asked to come to a conclusion upon this most important issue in less than a week's time—an issue of the utmost importance to the Government, the finances of the country and the happiness of millions of human beings who are affected.

Miss BONDFIELD: The speech of the hon. and gallant Member seems to be much ado about nothing. Clause 5 re peals the fourth statutory condition with respect to "not genuinely seeking work." If there is one point upon which there is unanimity in the Committee, almost without exception, it is that something must be done in regard to that matter. The Prime Minister has stated that Clause 5 is attached to Clause 4; it is complementary to Clause 4, and we shall have Clause 4 in the Bill before we move Clause 5 in. Therefore the simple method of dealing with the business at the moment is to ask the Deputy-Chairman to put Clause 5 to the Committee, so that we may vote it out for the time being, on the understanding that it comes back again in order that the whole matter may be dealt with when Clause 4 is upon the Order Paper. It must be remembered that we are merely dealing with Clause 5 in respect of one condition of benefit which everybody is agreed has become absolutely unworkable, and must be dealt with. Therefore it does not seem to me that this is the appropriate occasion on which to raise the merits of Clause 4. It is merely for the convenience of the Committee that we use the appropriate forms of the House to get Clause 5 out
of the way, so that it can come back again when Clause 4 is upon the Order Paper.

Mr. FOOT: I rise to answer something that was said by the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot). A prompt answer is necessary from these benches. As I understood the position which was announced last Thursday, the Sub-sections were to be taken out of Clause 4 and the Clause was to be withdrawn, so that it might be presented in another form more consistent with the general demands of the majority of the Committee. It was certainly not understood, as we are now led to believe by the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove, that that Clause was to be taken out and that there was to be no substitute for Sub-sections (2), (3) and (4). I had the opportunity, in the hearing of the hon. and gallant Member, although he did not think it right to refer to it to-day, to urge that there was a necessity for some substitute for Sub-section (2), if it was to be removed from the Bill. It is unfortunate that the hon. and gallant Member should make his attack upon those who sit on these benches, whose attendance throughout the Debates on this Bill, and also in the Division Lobbies—

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: On a point of Order. Has the matter which is now being raised by the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot) anything to do with the Motion before the Committee?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that it has not, but the non. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove strayed a little from the Motion. May I suggest that the Committee should allow Clause 5 to be withdrawn? It is not within my power to put the Question: "That the Clause stand part," seeing that certain Amendments to it are upon the Order Paper. I can only do so with the consent of the entire Committee. If it is the general view of the Committee that Clause 5 be withdrawn, I shall be glad to put that Question.

Mr. FOOT: I had no desire to intervene except that when a suggestion is made of some wrongful act on our part we are entitled to answer.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: I understood that you had given your Ruling upon my point of Order.

Mr. FOOT: I suggest that it is not in the mouth of the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove to make suggestions against hon. and right hon. Members who sit below the Gangway on this side. When so much public money is involved—

Mr. SOMERVILLE: A Ruling has been given upon this point.

Mr. FOOT: When so many millions of public money were involved and when the state of the fund and the public Exchequer were involved, I would point out that not one word by way of protest or warning was uttered from the Front Opposition Bench, who profess to be in a particular sense the trustees of the public purse.

Major ELLIOT: I am not going to discuss the question which has been raised by the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot). What I want to point out is this, and I am sure that the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) will agree that it is a point of great substance, that the hon. Member suggests that what I may call the Hayday formula has not been accepted. It was the understanding of many hon. Members both above and below the Gangway last Thursday that that formula had been accepted. I am not arguing whether the Hayday formula is right or wrong, but before we continue our Debate we must know whether the Hayday formula has or has not been accepted.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: On a point of Order. I am one of those who are affected by the possible withdrawal of Clause 5. Shall I be in order on the Motion to report Progress in stating my objections to the withdrawal of the Clause, or must I wait until you put the Motion?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must wait until I put the Clause.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Before the Motion is put, would the Government consider when they present the new Clause 4, and with it the new Clause 5, recommitting the Bill in that respect, rather than attempt to discuss it on the Report procedure. So far as we under-
stood from the undertaking given last week, the new Clause 4 is to have one omnibus Sub-section, based on what is called the Hayday formula. All the other Sub-sections are to be wiped out as separate Sub-sections, and there is to be a new omnibus Sub-section. I think the Committee should have the' utmost freedom in considering the new draft. The Prime Minister will agree that an a complicated matter of drafting such as this, involving further financial commitments, we should be able to debate the actual words of the new Clause in Committee, and I therefore ask that when the new Clause is brought up on Report stage, the right hon. Gentleman will consider recommitting the Bill and enable us to get into Committee for the purpose of discussing it.

Miss BONDFIELD: We are carrying out the pledge we gave, and we have consulted and shall consult those who took a prominent part in the discussion on Thursday when the undertaking was given to withdraw Clause 4 and bring up a new Clause. That was the distinct understanding. Those consultations are still proceeding. Until we get a decision as the result of those consultations I do not think I can make any promise.

Major ELLIOT: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 5.—(Repeal of fourth statutory condition.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: What about the Amendments to Clause 5?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I understood that in view of the fact that the Minister wished to withdraw Clause 5 the Amendments to that Clause on the Order Paper would not be taken. I appealed to the Committee and I thought I had assent to that course.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: As one of those who is affected by this Clause I should like to say a few words why, in my opinion, it should not be withdrawn, and why it is not necessary to withdraw it. The Committee has agreed that Clause 4 should be deleted, but in whatever form Clause 4 ultimately emerges Clause 5, in identically the same words, will be
necessary because it only relates to the statutory conditions in Section 7 of the principal Act. Therefore, if the Minister brings in a new Clause 4, modifying the statutory conditions of the principal Act, Clause 5 will have to be debated. I do not see why it should not be possible to retain Clause 5. I have an Amendment down to reduce the waiting period to three days. I do not propose to discuss that question now, but I should like to enter my protest against the withdrawal of the Clause.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 6.—(Examination and determina- tion of claims.)

Captain BOURNE: I beg to move, in page 5, line 30, to leave out the word "examination" and to insert instead thereof the word "determination."
This Amendment, and a subsequent Amendment to Clause 7, deals with disallowances under Sub-sections (2) and (3) of departed Clause 4, but as we do not know whether these Sub-sections are coming back or not in some other form it is extremely difficult for any member of the Committee to make up his mind whether the elaborate machinery proposed in this Clause 6 is or is not necessary in order to deal with these claims for disallowed benefits. The point of my Amendment is to make the insurance officer in the first place responsible for deciding whether a claim is or is not admissible, and to leave an appeal to the Court of Referees in the event of a disagreement with his decision. If we are to have what is called the Hayday formula it seems to me that the only point for him to determine will be the extremely simple one as to whether the man has refused the offer of a job, and this point, and the point as to whether he has sufficient stamps, is extremely easy to decide. They are simply questions of fact, and it seems to me that the number of cases which will necessitate an appeal to the court of referees are almost negligible. It is easy for anyone to ascertain whether a man has in fact been offered a job, and whether, having been offered a job, he has refused it, and if we are going to have principle of the so-called Hayday Amendment embodied in the new Clause, which the Government intends to put on the Paper
to take the place of Clause 4, it is perfectly unnecessary to have the case referred from the insurance officer to the referee; I am going on the assumption that it is the Hayday formula which we are going to see in the new Clause 4.
If it is not so, I still think there is strong argument in favour of what has been the procedure hitherto, namely, that the offer of a job should determine benefit. After all, any form of words upon which we may decide will give rise to a great many claims which will have to be decided in the first instance. One of the benefits of the administration of the scheme has been that certain principles have been laid down for universal application, because insurance officers in cases of doubt have the right to refer the matter to the Chief Insurance Officer at Kew. That, at any rate, ensures that a uniform system of determination will be followed. If you are going to refer questions of principle as well as matters of fact, you will probably have a court of referees in South Wales dealing on totally different principles to a court of referees in Durham, and therefore the whole administration of the Bill will fall into a state of confusion, which I for one think undesirable. I am well aware that the Minister of Labour is following the recommendations of the Morris Committee, but I do not think they appreciated the immense importance of having uniformity of decision on points of principle, with the right of the individual to appeal on matters of fact.

Miss BONDFIELD: This is the first of a aeries of Amendments which, if carried out, will have the same effect, and it is an exceedingly important and interesting point with which the Committee should be fully seized. Under the Bill we are changing certain administrative methods in connection with the machinery for determining claim's. As the hon. and gallant Member has said, hitherto the insurance officer has had to determine the claims in the first instance, and the claimant has had the right to appeal against the decision. Under this Bill the insurance officer will be entitled to admit claims without further delay that are in accordance with the conditions and which in the opinion of the insurance officer comply with the conditions of benefit. If they regard the claims as admitted
there will be no further delay. But it is when a doubt arises in the mind of the insurance officer that a change takes place. Hitherto be has sent the papers to Kew, buff-coloured papers, in a very condensed form, and at Kew there has been uniformity of decision. In fact, there has been 'a sort of cast-iron method which does not take the 'slightest account of the amazing variations in connection with what may on paper seem to be the same class of case.
That is one of the root difficulties in connection with the old procedure which we are trying to cure by deciding that where a doubt arises in the mind of the insurance officer instead of sending the papers to Kew he shall send them to the court of referees. It does not necessarily follow that the papers will not go to Kew. They may, and if Kew admits them they can he paid. I puts in that proviso, but it is purely an administrative point and does not affect the words in the Bill at all. But if Kew has a doubt about the validity of the claim, Kew cannot disallow it; the papers must go to the court of referees. The words in the Bill are "insurance officer." It is clear that we cannot accept the Amendment, because it would reverse what we are trying to do in this Clause. We want to recognise that in judging and deciding on a claim where the man has undertaken those efforts which are required by the statutory conditions we 'have to consider the nature of his trade and the ordinary methods in connection with that trade in filling vacancies. You cannot judge on the same facts as applied to a docker and a textile worker. The two are totally different, and it is to have someone who knows local circumstances and understands the normal method by which situations are filled, who will be able to judge by a knowledge of the facts, and possibly by a personal interview with the applicant. This is one of the important changes we are trying to bring about, that the insured person may be judged by one who really understands all the facts of his particular case, rather than on a pure paper uniformity which creates more injustices than otherwise.

Mr. E. BROWN: I am very glad the hon. and gallant Member has moved his Amendment, because, although I do not agree with it, it has drawn a very important statement from the Minister of
Labour which will clear up doubts which have existed in the minds of many people. I agree with the right hon. Lady that the Bill will be an improvement if it is carried out. It is not only the fact that the brief statement sent to Kew rarely does justice to the variation in conditions between trade and trade, but it rarely does justice to the variation in conditions as between place and place. There may be variations between the dockers and weavers, but there are variations between the conditions of dockers in Leith and dockers in London. When you get increased centralisation of the determination of complaints, you also get a rigidity of statement in the brief, and there is always a tendency amongst the 57 insurance officers at Kew to get a uniformity of decision. I hope the Amendment will not be pressed. I can assure the hon. and gallant Member from my experience of an industrial constituency that the present procedure is against the interests of justice to men making claims, and is almost impossible so far as practical working is concerned. If justice is to be done, those who have local knowledge must have the maximum chance of making local decisions.

Sir JOHN POWER: The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) spoke about justice. I have yet to hear that word used in this Committee with respect to the contributors who are not receiving benefit. There should be a claim of justice for them. After all, the State stands in the position of trustee in this fund. The State, the employers and the employed pay into the fund certain sums of money, and the State is in the position of trustee and has to administer the fund faithfully and impartially. I think we are rather apt to lose sight of that side of the case. I do not think anyone will disagree with the statement that there are certain individuals in the community who endeavour to get something for nothing, and are quite prepared to go on living in State-supported idleness. There should be some deterrent placed in the way of such individuals in justice to all the contributors. The change proposed in this Clause is far-reaching. In 1028 there were no fewer than 895,000 cases referred to the Chief Insurance Officer at Kew; that is close on a million. Of these cases he allowed 274,000 only, and he disallowed
621,000 claims. We all know that these disallowed claims have the right of appeal to the court of referees. Out of these 621,000 that were disallowed only 227,000 took the matter any further, and no fewer than 394,000 gave the matter up.
I do not think it can be said that they went on to the Poor Law, for the figures show that that is not the case. The latest figure I have is for the week ended 15th June last. Curiously enough the able-bodied unemployed on the Poor Law diminished. There were only 65,000 of them. The previous year, before the 1927 Act had come properly into force, there were 84,000, and before the Clause of which we hear of so much abuse was brought into being in the previous year, there were no fewer than 118,000 able-bodied unemployed on the Poor Law. Therefore, we ought to hesitate before we pass a Clause bringing about this great change. We ought to have some regard for the interests of the other parties to the scheme—those who are in constant work; those who pay, pay, pay, from one year to another, and never receive any benefit from the Unemployment Fund; those who are undoubtedly among the best of our citizens. I have not heard from hon. Members opposite a single speech containing a plea for the consideration of those people. It is high time that their claims received some consideration.

Mr. HAYDAY: I want the Committee to realise fully what the Amendment means. It means restoring the practice that has prevailed hitherto, that the insurance officers forward their reports to the chief insurance officer, and that the chief insurance officer may suspend benefit. That means that benefit at once ceases. It has often happened, moreover, that when such suspension has taken place the first intimation given to the applicant was when he went to draw benefit on the Friday. It is true that the applicant may appeal. Suppose that an appeal is made. Against whom does he appeal I Against someone who has had the first determination of his claim. He is, in effect, appealing against the chief insurance officer. Then if the court of referees recommends that it is not a case that ought to be disallowed the chief insurance officer can again appeal against the recommendation of
the court of referees. That gives the applicant one very small chance against the two chances of the chief insurance officer who first declared that no benefit could be allowed.
Periods go by, and then if the chief insurance officer appeals successfully against the recommendation of the court of referees, there remains the appeal to the umpire. But very often five or six weeks have passed, and benefit has been suspended for the whole of that time. The 'principle underlying the Clause, against which the Amendment is moved, says "Certainly examine the claims. You may allow claims that are straightforward. Those that you feel ought not to be allowed you must refer to the court of referees, not for the purpose of making a recommendation, but for the purpose of the court of referees coming to a decision." The advantage of that arrangement is that it is carried out by those who have local knowledge of the circumstances of an industry, and not by a chief insurance officer who knows only what is in a paper report from the interviewing insurance officer locally. It is unfair to withhold benefit for six weeks from a person who may ultimately secure a decision in his favour, but who during those six weeks has had to go to the Poor Law authorities and has found his first experience a very damaging and depressing one. Justice and experience alone prompted the proposal of the Bill, that the chief insurance officer should be put in no more favourable position in contesting the right of a claimant than is the claimant himself. I hope the Committee will not reimpose the handicap on the applicant, Who is not skilled in putting his case and who has against him the whole of the official machinery of the chief insurance officer at Kew.

Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: Let me point out very briefly how the speech of the Minister and of the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hay-day) are themselves the most direct proof of the extraordinarily unsatisfactory conditions under which at the moment we are discusing this Bill. Both speeches dealt with the advantages of a decision being reached locally instead of a case being sent up to the chief insurance officer at Kew. I ask the Committee to mark the reasons which were
given by the Minister. She emphasised the fact that it would be a local tribunal and that it would be better able to assess the efforts by a worker to obtain work. She pointed out how different were the conditions of a clothworker and a docker, and how therefore local committees could make assessments better than the chief insurance officer. She stated that the situation of a docker in one port would be different from the situation of a docker in another. Although those arguments would no doubt be applicable to an argument on the present "genuinely seeking work" provision, or one based on the principles which were put forward by the learned Attorney-General, on the whole the arguments go completely by the board and are completely inapplicable here. So are the arguments of the hon. Member for West Nottingham, even if his own formula is adopted as the basis of the new and revised Clause 4 which is to be introduced.
It is absolutely unreal for us to try to debate this Clause until we know what the new Clause 4 is to be. On this side of the Committee we have not yet the ghost of a notion whether, as the outcome of last Thursday's events, the principles laid down by the Attorney-General are to form the basis of the new Clause, or whether the principle laid down in what is known as the Hayday formula is to dominate the Clause. Until we have that information no discussion of this Clause can be carried on satisfactorily.

Mr. HARRIS: I hope that the Committee will not be persuaded by the superficial argument of the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. After all, this particular Clause is to be part of the Bill. We are to have 'a new Clause 4. We have to decide now what its procedure should be when it comes into being. I consider this Clause to be one of the greatest improvements on the old procedure.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: My whole point is that the arguments on this matter, and possibly the nature of the tribunal, would differ entirely according to the ultimate form of Clause 4, and until we know the ultimate form of Clause 4 what on earth use is there in trying to decide the form of Clause 6?

5.0 p.m.

Mr. HARRIS: But the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) has moved an Amendment, and we have to decide whether to vote for it or against it; we have to decide what will materially affect the future administration of unemployment insurance. One of the big objections to the old procedure was that it was regarded by insured persons as thoroughly inhuman, bureaucratic and centralised. What we are now going to do is to make the people concerned certain that their cases will not be tried by officials with hundreds of thousands of others, backed by tremendous Regulations, but by officials on the spot who have a full knowledge of the local environment and of the applicant. They will give a decision which will be likely to have not an abstract and theoretical value, but a personal and human bearing on the case that will be dealt with. I always understood that the court of referees was approved of by the right hon. Gentleman, and, as far as I know, the whole of the machinery for referring these cases to a court of three persons, two of whom represent employers and employés, respectively, has worked very well. I am very glad that, instead of putting the responsibility on the shoulders of the local officer of deciding a case against a man, that we are going to give the man the opportunity of going before a proper court, where his case will be fairly considered, where all the peculiar circumstances of his case will be borne in mind and where he will have a fair chance of justice. I think this is a tremendous step forward, and I hope that ingenious Amendments which are not in the interest of the insured person, but are designed to make it more difficult for a man to get the benefit to which he is entitled, will be resisted by the right hon. Lady. This is a good Clause, and I hope it will go through practically unamended.

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) made a complaint against bureaucratic interference and expressed himself in favour of local autonomy. I think we all more or less agree with him, speaking generally, but there are certain dangers, even in local autonomy. My experience of civil servants in general is that they will not take responsibility, except on certain definite facts, and they will not run the risk of making a decision which may get them into trouble with a superior officer. What I am afraid of is that in these cases the local insurance officer may only give an opinion favourable to the claimant on certain hard-and-fast lines which cannot be challenged. In that case the proposal is going to throw extra work on the court of referees. On the other hand, there may be two insurance officers in two neighbouring towns, one of whom has, perhaps, a little more experience or a little more common sense than the other. He may give one decision and his colleague in a town a few miles away may give a totally different decision. Thus, there will be trouble with the insurance officers, as well as dissatisfaction on the part of the people who make the claims. A variety of decisions within a comparatively small area may upset the people more than ever and make them, in the end, wish that they could refer these cases even to a central bureaucratic system. I think that insurance officers, however, could be informed that they have a very definite amount of latitude to come to common-sense decisions in these cases, and if insurance officers did occasionally make mistakes, they ought not to be hauled over the coals or penalised unduly for such mistakes.

Question put, "That the word a 'examination' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 248; Noes, 139.

Division No. 79.]
AYES.
[5.4 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bliston)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Broad, Francis Alfred


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Barnes, Alfred John
Brockway, A. Fenner


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Batey, Joseph
Bromfield, William


Altchison, Rt. Hon. Cralgie M.
Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Brothers, M.


Alpass, J. H.
Bellamy, Albert
Brown, Ernest (Leith)


Amnion, Charles George
Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)


Angell, Norman
Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Buchanan, G.


Arnott, John
Benson, G.
Burgess, F. G.


Aske, Sir Robert
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. A. Elland)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Bondfield, Rt. Hon, Margaret
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)


Ayles, Walter
Bowen, J. W.
Caine, Derwent Hall.


Cameron, A. G.
Kennedy, Thomas
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Kinley, J.
Ritson, J.


Charleton, H. C.
Kirkwood, D.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)


Chater, Daniel
Knight, Holford
Romeril, H. G.


Church, Major A. 6.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Cluse, W. S.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Rowson, Guy


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Law, A. (Rosendale)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Compton, Joseph
Lawrence, Susan
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)


Cove, William G.
Lawson, John James
Sanders, W. S.


Daggar, George
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Sandham, E.


Dallas, George
Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)
Sawyer, G. F.


Dalton, Hugh
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Scott, James


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lees, J.
Scrymgeour, E.


Day, Harry
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Scurr, John


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Longbottom, A. W.
Sexton, James


Dickson, T.
Longden, F.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Lowth, Thomas
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Dukes, C.
Lunn, William
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Duncan, Charles
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Sherwood, G. H.


Ede, James Chuter
Mac Donald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Shield, George William


Edmunds, J. E.
Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Shillaker, J. F.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
McEiwee, A.
Shinwell, E.


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
McEntee, V. L.
Simmons, C. J.


Eimley, Viscount
Mackinder, W.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
MacLaren, Andrew
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)


Foot, Isaac
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
McShane, John James
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
March, S.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Gibbins, Joseph
Markham, S. F.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Gill, T. H.
Marley, J.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Gillett, George M.
Mathers, George
Sorensen, R.


Glassey, A. E.
Matters, L. W.
Spero, Dr. G. E.


Gosling, Harry
Maxton, James
Stamford, Thomas W.


Gossling, A. G.
Melville, Sir James
Stephen, Campbell


Gould, F.
Messer, Fred
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Gray, Milner
Middleton, G.
Strauss, G. R.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Mills, J. E.
Sutton, J. E.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Montague, Frederick
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Groves, Thomas E.
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Thome, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Grundy, Thomas W.
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Thurtie, Ernest


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Mort, D. L.
Tillett, Ben


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Tinker, John Joseph


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Muff, G.
Tout, W. J.


Harris, Percy A.
Muggeridge, H. T.
Townend, A. E.


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Naylor, T. E.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Haycock, A. W.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Turner, B.


Hayday, Arthur
Noel Baker, P. J.
Viant, S. P.


Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Wallace, H. w.


Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Herrlotts, J.
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor


Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Palin, John Henry
Watkins, F. C.


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Palmer, E. T.
Wellock, Wilfred


Hoffman, P. C.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
West, F. R.


Hollins, A.
Perry, S. F.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Horrabin, J. F.
Phillips, Dr. Marion
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Pole, Major D. G.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Ponsonby, Arthur
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Johnston, Thomas
Potts, John S.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Price, M. P.
Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Quibell, D. F. K.
Wise, E. F.


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Rathbone, Eleanor



Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Raynes, W. R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Mr. Hayes and Mr. Paling.


Kelly, W. T.
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)



NOES.


Albery, Irving James
Bird, Ernest Roy
Castle Stewart, Earl of


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Cautley, Sir Henry S.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A.(Birm., W.)


Astor, Viscountess
Boyce, H. L.
Chamberlain. Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)


Atkinson, C.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Cohen, Major J. Brunei


Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Burton, Colonel H. W.
Colman, N. C. D.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Butler, R. A.
Conway, Sir W. Martin


Beaumont, M. W.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Cranbourne, Viscount


Berry, Sir George
Carver, Major W. H.
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.




Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Salmon, Major I.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Dawson, Sir Philip
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Lleweilin, Major J. J.
Savery, S. S.


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Long, Major Eric
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Eden, Captain Anthony
Lymington, Viscount
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Wetton-s. M.)
Macquisten, F. A.
Smithers, Waldron


Everard, W. Lindsay
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Fermoy, Lord
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Fielden, E. B.
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Fison, F. G. Clavering
Marjoribanks, E. C.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Ford, Sir P. J.
Meller, R. J.
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Stuart, J. C. (Moray and Nairn)


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Steel-Maitland, Fit. Hon. Sir Arthur


Ganzonl, Sir John
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Thomson, Sir F.


Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Morrison Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Turton, Robert Hugh


Grace, John
Muirhead, A. J.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptrsf'ld)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Hammersley, S. S.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
O'Neill, Sir H.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Hartington, Marquess of
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Wayland, Sir William A.


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Wells, Sydney R.


Haslam, Henry C.
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Power, Sir John Cecil
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Hennessy, Major Sir G. Ft. J.
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Withers, Sir John James


Herbert, S.(York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Purbrick, R.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Ramsbotham, H.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.



Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Reynolds, Col. Sir James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hurd, Percy A.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Captain Sir George Bowyer and


Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Ross, Major Ronald D.
Captain Wallace.


Kindersley, Major G. M.
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.

Captain. BOURNE: I beg to move, in page 6, line 11, to leave out the word "Minister," and to insert instead thereof the words "court of referees."
This Amendment does not raise a very important point, but it is concerned with a matter of some interest. Where the time for an appeal is extended for special reasons, the decision to that effect under this Sub-section is made by the Minister, whereas in Sub-section (6) of the same Clause the decision allowing an appeal to the umpire in certain circumstances is to be made by the court of referees. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that where it is laid down that an extension of time may be given for the hearing of claims by an appeal court, the persons to decide whether or not the circumstances justify that extension ought to be the court who are on the spot. That is what the right hon. Lady argued in the discussion on the list Amendment—that those on the spot have a much better knowledge of the circumstances than the Minister who sits in London and must be dependent upon a written report. That was the objection raised by the Minister on my last Amendment.
I cannot help thinking that if the Government accept this Amendment, it will
bring this provision more into line with the rest of the Clause which will then provide that in both cases the court of referees will have to decide whether or not the circumstances are such that an extension of time should be allowed for an appeal. It is difficult to see why if an appeal should lie to the umpire from a decision, in that case it should be the court of referees who should decide whether the time limit is to be extended, but on an appeal from the insurance officer it should be decided by the Minister, who has no knowledge of the case and is in a worse position to make up his or her mind than the court of referees, which sits locally, or than the insurance officer himself, who is again familiar with local conditions and can hear what the claimant has to say. It seems to me that the Minister is the most unsuitable person to exercise this discretion.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Lawson): The chief objection to this Amendment is that it may be necessary for a claimant who wants an extension of time to wait until the court actually meets in order that his claim may come before the court and he can give reasons for claiming the extension,
whereas the practice has been in the past—and, as far as we are aware, there have been no complaints arising from it—that where in order to question a decision affecting a claimant's right to benefit the claimant has applied to the Minister for an extension of time and the Minister has been in a position to act quickly and to grant it or otherwise. It appears that the Amendment would have the effect of making the claimant wait until the court assembled, a period which might vary in different parts of the country, and then, when the court assembled, he would have to appear before it to give his reasons for desiring an extension of time. In practice it has been the case that the only thing that has been necessary was to make an application to the Minister, and that there have been quick decisions in that way. Therefore, the Government cannot accept the Amendment.

Major SALMON: Who would advise the Minister on that?

Mr. LAWSON: The local insurance officer.

Mr. ATKINSON: The Minister can only have before him a written document, and nobody will have an opportunity of seeing if the reasons set forth in the document are good, bad, or indifferent, whereas, on the other hand, if all that the applicant has to do is to go to the court of referees and give these same reasons, a question may blow them to smithereens. It will be quite simple to ascertain what the real facts are. If all these hundreds and thousands of cases are to go to the courts of referees as a matter of course, I take it that those courts will be continuously sitting, and, therefore, I do not think there is much in the argument of the Parliamentary Secretary about the claimant having to wait till the court sits. He can get up and say, "I am out of time, but I ask for leave to appeal." It is constantly done in Courts of Justice, and you can give notice of an application for leave to appeal. They consider it, and if you have a good excuse for being late, they hear your appeal, but if they think you have no excuse, they do not hear it.
I suggest that machinery of this kind, of going to a Minister who cannot possibly be in a position to give a decision having any relevance to the situation, is not the
best way of deciding the question. A man may think he has got a good reason on paper which would appeal to the Minister, and it does not do so, whereas in truth he may have half a dozen very good reasons, which it does not occur to him to, mention on the paper. If he goes to the court of referees, he can tell the whole story, and I am certain that it would be much more satisfactory to the man than to be bound by an arbitrary decision of the Minister given on a statement of the case which may be totally inadequate. I think the Amendment ought to be accepted.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: As the Clause stands at present, surely it is putting a tremendous onus on the Minister. All these appeals are to go to him, and probably it is quite unnecessary. There is nothing in the Clause to prevent an appeal being made, even if it is past 21 days. The appeal can be made for extended time at any time, and if the court of referees is satisfied that the case is a good one, it can grant the right of appeal, even if the 21 days have gone by. If the man has a good enough case, it is surely much better that he should be able to put it forward, in the way suggested by the Amendment, to the court of referees, rather than that all these cases should go to a Minister, who really has enough work to do under this Bill without putting all this extra burden upon him. I suggest that the Government should reconsider this Amendment.

Captain CROOKSHANK: This is the only time in this Clause that the Minister is mentioned at all, and there does not seem, to be any particular reason why you should not make these decisions in the localities where they arise. You have got, 21 days anyhow, and I understood the argument of the Parliamentary Secretary was that it might be very awkward because the court of referees might not meet within that period, but surely it is almost inconceivable to suppose that, in view of the probable numbers which are going to, be affected, there will be any period of three weeks when a court of referees will not be meeting, except possibly during what is called the ordinary holiday season, and in that event, surely, some temporary, ad hoc arrangement could be made by which reference could informally be made to the court of referees, so that they could give the permission required with regard to these appeals.
The hon. Gentleman said it would be much more convenient to the Minister to give this decision, but I think it would be much more inconvenient, because the Minister would not have the vast amount of information at his disposal that he had before, because, as I understood the discussion on the earlier Amendment, the whole of the Kew procedure is being more or less washed out, and therefore the information on which the Minister would hitherto have been receiving advice would not be available. I would repeat the question put by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Harrow (Major Salmon), namely, Upon whose advice will the Minister give her decision with regard to time? I hope that at any rate the Parliamentary Secretary will do my hon. and gallant Friend the courtesy of answering that question. Who will give the advice; why are not 21 days quite long enough to cover the period of any gap between the meetings of the court of referees; and would it not be far more in tenor with the Bill to keep all these particular subjects for decision locally rather than to bring them up to the Minister?

Mr. HARRIS: This is a very small Amendment, and I am rather inclined to think it is the sort of Amendment that the Government might very well accept. It is not a very revolutionary proposal, and on the whole I should prefer this power to be kept in the locality rather than given to the Minister. Everybody knows how a, Minister can be got at in various ways. If constituents have a very diligent Member, who can write persuasive letters to the Minister, an insured person may have a chance of receiving consideration, but net all constituents are so well favoured—if they were, the Minister would be snowed under with letters—and it seems to me that for the smooth working of this Bill it would be wiser on the whole to give this power to the court of referees. 1: know that not all the courts of referees reach the same standard of quality, but I suggest that if the Parliamentary Secretary cannot accept this Amendment, he might give the alternative that the appeal should be made either to the Minister or to the court of referees. It is a very small Amendment, not affecting the substance of the Bill, and therefore I hope it will be accepted.

Mr. OLIVER STANLEY: I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will accept the
Amendment. As I understand it, he does not put up the argument that the Minister is the better person to decide this matter, but that to make this change would mean that the unemployed man might have to wait longer for the determination of his claim, and therefore longer before he could draw benefit; but, there is nothing operative in the decision of the Minister on leave to appeal. That is to say, the claim has been disallowed, the man is out of time in making his claim, but appeals for leave to appeal, and the fact that that leave is granted does not make him entitled to draw benefit pending the hearing of the claim. He has to wait for the decision of his claim and the right to draw benefit until the claim has been heard by the Court of Referees, and therefore the argument about how long it might take the Court of Referees to meet is not very relevant, because anyhow he has to wait till that time before he has a chance of drawing any benefit at all.
I think my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Altrincham (Mr. Atkinson) made a substantial point. It is a common practice in a Court of Law that application for leave to appeal and the appeal should be made concurrently. You first make application for leave to appeal, and, if that is granted, you go on with the appeal. May I suggest that the hon. Member should make some alteration sc as to make it obvious that the claimant will have the right to appear before the Court of Referees, make application for leave to appeal, and, if that is granted, proceed immediately to ask the Court to determine his appeal? Under those circumstances the unemployed man cannot be prejudiced in any way. It cannot delay his application in any way, and at the same time he gets what is an advantage, namely, that his application for leave to appeal should he made to a Court of Referees, who can ask him questions and elicit the whole story, rather than to a Minister in what would probably be a written document, in which a man who is not very well educated and not used to legal questions has to state once and for all, in black and white, what is his reason for appealing. I hope the hon. Member will realise that it would be possible to frame this Subsection in a way which will leave no opportunity for the unemployed man's claim to be delayed, and at the same
time will give the exercise of this power to what I think the Committee rather agrees is the appropriate tribunal, and that is the Court of Referees rather than the Minister.

Mr. LAWSON: I cannot quite understand why the Amendment is being pressed. The procedure laid down now has acted more quickly and in the best interests of the claimant, and for this reason we have decided that we cannot accept the Amendment.

Captain CAZALET: Is it not a fact that under this Bill the court of referees will be sitting far more often because the number of cases will be largely increased, and that probably the court will sit at least once a fortnight throughout the year? If an appeal goes to the Minister, it might be delayed for a week or 10 days in the ordinary course of the business of the office. Can the Parliamentary Secretary say how often he thinks the court of referees will be sitting?

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: I have listened with great care to the observations which have fallen from hon. Members opposite, which I think have proceeded on a misunderstanding of the Clause. Those observations have proceeded on the view that some further solicitude must be shown to the

claimant, but that further solicitude is provided by this Clause. All that it lays down is this, that the claimant is given 21 days in which to appeal against the disallowance of his claim. If he omits to put in his claim within the 21 days and, therefore, loses his rights, this Clause provides him with a further opportunity in circumstances in which the Minister can review them. It is a perfectly reasonable proposal, and I hope that the Committee will accept it.

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I understand that the claims referred to in this Subsection are those which arise under Sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the principal Act, which affects stoppages of work due to trade disputes. If that be the case, a court of referees would be more likely to be seized of the circumstances, because the trade dispute would take place in their vicinity. They would be able to decide whether the claimant should have the right of extension better than the Minister, who would not be so well seized of the circumstances. In any event, the occasions on which the question would arise would not be very numerous.

Question put, "That the word 'Minister' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 255; Noes, 148.

Division No. 80.]
AYES.
[5.33 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Foot, Isaac


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Buchanan, G.
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Burgess, F. G.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)


Alpass, J. H.
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk. N.)
Gibbins, Joseph


Ammon, Charles George
Caine, Derwent Hall-
Gill, T. H.


Angell, Norman
Cameron, A. G.
Gillett, George M.


Arnott, John
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Glassey, A. E.


Aske, Sir Robert
Charleton, H. C.
Gosling, Harry


Attlee, Clement Richard
Chater, Daniel
Gossling, A. G.


Ayles, Walter
Church, Major A. G.
Gould, F.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Cluse, W. S.
Gray, Milner


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)


Barnes, Alfred John
Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Batey, Joseph
Compton, Joseph
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Cove, William G.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)


Bellamy, Albert
Daggar, George
Groves, Thomas E.


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Dallas, George
Grundy, Thomas W.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Dalton, Hugh
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)


Benson, G.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Day, Harry
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Harris, Percy A.


Birkett, W. Norman
Dickson, T.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville


Bowen, J. W.
Dukes, C.
Haycock, A. W.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Duncan, Charles
Hayday, Arthur


Broad, Francis Alfred
Ede, James Chuter
Hayes, John Henry


Brockway, A. Fenner
Edmunds, J. E.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)


Bromfield, William
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)


Bromley, J.
Eimley, Viscount
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)


Brothers, M.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Herriotts, J.


Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Maxton, James
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Melville, Sir James
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Hoffman, P. C.
Messer, Fred
Sherwood, G. H.


Hollins, A.
Mills, J. E.
Shield, George William


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Montague, Frederick
Shillaker, J. F.


Horrabin, J. F.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Shinwell, E.


Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Simmons, C. J.


Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)


Johnston, Thomas
Mort, D. L.
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Muff, G.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Muggeridge, H. T.
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Naylor, T. E.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Noel Baker, P. J.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Oldfield, J. R.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Kelly, W. T.
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Sorensen, R.


Kennedy, Thomas
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Spero, Dr. G. E.


Kinley, J.
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Stamford, Thomas W.


Kirkwood, D.
Palin, John Henry
Stephen, Campbell


Knight, Holford
Paling, Wilfrid
Strauss, G. R.


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molten)
Palmer, E. T.
Sutton, J. E.


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Perry, S. F.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Lathan, G.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W,
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)


Law, Albert (Bolton)
Phillips, Dr. Marlon
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Law, A. (Rosendale)
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Lawrence, Susan
Pole, Major D. G.
Thurtle, Ernest


Lawson, John James
Ponsonby, Arthur
Tillett, Ben


Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Potts, John s.
Tinker, John Joseph


Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)
Price, M. P.
Tout, W. J.


Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Pybus, Percy John
Townend, A. E.


Lees, J.
Quibell, D. F. K.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Turner, B.


Longbottom, A. W.
Rathbone, Eleanor
Viant, S. P.


Longden, F.
Raynes, W. R.
Wallace, H. w.


Lowth, Thomas
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Lunn, William
Riley, Bon (Dewsbury)
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor


Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Watkins, F. C.


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Ritson, J.
Wellock, Wilfred


Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)
West, F. R.


McElwee, A.
Romeril, H. G.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


McEntee, V. L.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Mackinder, W.
Rowson, Guy
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


MacLaren, Andrew
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


MacNeill-Weir, L.
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


McShane, John James
Sanders, W. S.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Sandham, E.
Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Mansfield, W.
Sawyer, G. F.
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


March, S.
Scott, James
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)


Markham, S. F.
Scrymgeour, E.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Marley, J.
Scurr, John



Mathers, George
Sexton, James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Matters, L. W.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr.




Charles Edwards.


NOES.


Albery, Irving James
Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Gault, Lieut.-Col- Andrew Hamilton


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Colman, N. C. D.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Glyn, Major R. G. C.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M.S.
Cranbourne, Viscount
Grace, John


Astor, Viscountess
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)


Atkinson, C.
Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Hammersley, S. S.


Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Hartington, Marquess of


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Haslam, Henry C.


Beaumont, M. W.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur p.


Berry, Sir George
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Duckworth, G. A. V.
Herbert, S.(York, N.R., Scar. & Wh'by)


Bird, Ernest Roy
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Eden, Captain Anthony
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Boyce, H. L.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Everard, W. Lindsay
Hudson, Capt. A. V. M. (Hackney, N.)


Butter, R. A.
Fermoy, Lord
Hurd, Percy A.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Fielden, E. B.
Hunt, Sir Gerald B.


Carver, Major W. H.
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Kindersley, Major G. M.


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Ford, Sir P. J.
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J.A.(Birm., W.)
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Ganzonl, Sir John
Leighton, Major B. E. P.




Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hen. Sir Arthur


Llewellin, Major J. J.
Power, Sir John Cecil
Stuart, J. C. (Moray and Nairn)


Long, Major Eric
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Lymington, Viscount
Purbrick, R.
Thomson, Sir F.


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Ramsbotham, H.
Tinne, J. A.


Macquisten, F. A.
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Reynolds, Got. Sir James
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Marjoribanks, t. C.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Meller, R. J.
Ross, Major Ronald D.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.


Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Salmon, Major I.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wells, Sydney R.


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Morrison Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Savery, S. S.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Womersley, W. J.


Muirhead, A. J.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)
Smith, R. w.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Smithers, Waldron



O'Neill, Sir H.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Captain Margesson and Captain


Peake, Capt. Osbert
Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Sir George Bowyer.


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)

Mr. BUCHANAN: I beg to move, in page 6, to leave out lines 14 to 20.
This provision carries on the practice under the 1927 Act. Under that Act, there is what is called a 13 weeks' review, that is to say, if a person in the course of any six months is 13 weeks out of employment, his case is automatically sent to the court of referees for review. That procedure might have been defended when the test was not genuinely seeking work, as under the 1927 Act, but we are assured by the Minister—and we accept her assurance—that the statutory condition is now to be swept aside, and the onus of proof is to be transferred from the applicant to the insurance officer or to the Exchange officials. In other words, the applicant for benefit now has not to prove his case before benefit can be granted, and the Exchange officials have to prove that there is a case against the applicant. If that be so, the case for the 13 weeks' review automatically collapses. Under the Act of 1927, the applicant had to prove that his search for work was genuine and diligent. Now the order is reversed, and yet you are sending the man, after the 13 weeks period is up, before the court of referees without any change against him.
If the Minister's statement, that the onus of proof is to be on the Exchange is correct, why send a person to the court of referees seeing that there is no case that can be stated against him? If the Minister's contention is right that the onus of proof is now transferred to the Employment Exchange, I think before a person is sent to a court of referees, the
Exchange ought to have a prima facie case against his receiving benefit. Instead of that, it is proposed to send the man merely because he has been 13 weeks out of work. I think the Minister could' accept this Amendment, and I am quite certain that it would make for smooth working and save a considerable amount of expenditure. As I understand it, the Exchange officials, if they think they can prove their case, have power to send an applicant to a court of referees at any time, even although the period of 13 weeks has not expired. If that power remains, then this automatic review period need not remain.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I rise to a point of Order. The passage which the hon. Member proposes to omit starts with a proviso, and I suggest that if the words are left out it will make absolute nonsense of the Clause.

Miss BONDFIELD: I think there is a certain amount of justification for the speech of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), but the 13 weeks review procedure before a court of referees has only been in operation for about 12 months. From our observations, it is quite clear that a certain number of cases in which there is no doubt at all as to the continuance of benefit are brought under review at the end of the 13 weeks. At the same time, I beg my hon. Friend not to press this Amendment. I want to watch the operation of the review procedure. It is not only a question of the case of the man whose claim is perfectly straightforward. I want
to have time to go into the matter much more thoroughly, and I will give it my very careful consideration in the course of the 12 months.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Under Clause 4 as it stands, without any Amendment, and assuming that the Bill passes in its original form, the onus of proof—at least part of the onus of proof—is on the Exchange; it is for them to prove that the man was offered a job and refused to take it. My point is this. When at the end of the 13 weeks' review period the man goes to a court of referees, are the Exchange officials to be represented there in order to prove that the man refused the job? In other words, are you going to treat the 13 weeks' review period in the same way for every man who goes to a court of referees, or is this man to be at a disadvantage 7 He will be at a disadvantage, a serious disadvantage. You may have a man who has been only 13 weeks out of work, and another man who may have been out of work for 18 months. This other man is called up before his 13 weeks are up, and the Exchange must prove a case against him. This other man who has been only 13 weeks out of work is to be called up and the Exchange is to prove nothing against him. It seems to me that we are leaving a man at a fearful disadvantage. He is to be cut off possibly without anybody having stated a prima facie ease.

Miss BONDFIELD: I think that is rather an exaggeration of the position as I see it. The idea is that the three parties, the employers, the workers and the independent chairman, should have a sort of bird's-eye view of what is going on in the Exchange independently of the officials, that is they should make a sort of independent review of the claims that are being paid. It does not mean that every man whose case is under review has to attend. If there is no doubt about a claim, in. nine cases out of ten he does not attend. The case papers go there. It is quite arguable that it is a waste of time, that a good deal of that turning over of papers is a waste of time; but all I am asking is that the Amendment should not be pressed now, and that I should have an opportunity to continue to watch the review procedure, with a view to further consideration at a later stage.

Mr. STEPHEN: I take it that when this automatic review takes place after 13 weeks the court of referees must allow the claim if the applicant satisfies the statutory conditions?

Miss BONDFIELD: Yes, there is no question about it.

Major ELLIOT: In the absence of any statutory disqualification, I agree fully with the contention of the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan). I cannot see what there is to review. If the right hon. Lady is accepting the position of the Attorney-General, then there is a case for review; but if she is accepting the Hayday formula, it is difficult to see what case there is for a review. If we knew which was which, we could discuss the matter quite clearly; but if no test, except the one that the man has refused a job, is to be brought up in the Employment Exchanges, then what is the point of a review after 13 weeks? All that can be said is that no job has been offered to the man within the 13 weeks. If it were a question of whether the man had been genuinely seeking work, or fulfilling other statutory conditions, there might be reason for reviewing the case; but if no man can ever be struck off benefit, save under the test that he has been offered a specific job and has refused it, then, if the review did take place and the man were disqualified, obviously the next morning all he would have to do would be to walk round to the Exchange and say, "Have you got a job?" and if they had not got a job, he would begin to draw benefit again.

Miss BONDFIELD: I must point out that Clause 4 deals only with the fourth statutory condition, and that the other three statutory conditions remain.

Mr. O. STANLEY: I understand this particular review procedure has been in operation for only a year, and that to a large extent it is a routine matter. But I suppose there are a certain number of cases in which courts of referees have taken some action on review. I would like to know from the hon. Lady on what such action on their part has been based. If the disqualifications have occurred because of the lapse of the 13 weeks, why have they occurred? Have they taken action on cases of not genuinely seeking employment which have not been brought
before them by the officer? I want to know why a court of referees functions in these cases?

Miss BONDFIELD: It functions in regard to the statutory conditions including 30 contributions test.

Major ELLIOT: But you are taking power to repeal the 30 contributions test.

Mr. BROCKWAY: I hope the Minister will reconsider her decision. Obviously, there was a case for this Sub-section so long as Clause 4 remained in its original form, but now that that Clause is to be amended, according to the decision of the majority in this Committee, the case for this Sub-section absolutely disappears. The right hon. Lady has stated that there are three other statutory conditions besides the statutory condition in Clause 4, but those other statutory conditions are absolutely routine matters which do not require discussion before a court of referees. We hear a great deal about the cost involved in certain Amendments which have been pressed from these benches. I would point out that the expenditure under this Measure does not arise wholly from demands made upon the fund 3 there is also the cost of administration, and everything which assists to make the administration easier and makes it less necessary to refer cases to a court of referees will lessen the administrative expenses. From that point of view I would urge upon the right hon. Lady that this Sub-section is no longer necessary, and should be withdrawn.

Dr. DAVIES: Could the right hon. Lady tell us whether in her experience these reviews act also as a review upon the work of her officials, and have the double effect of being a review of the eases of claimants and at the same time a review, either automatic or subconscious, of the efficiency of the work done by the Employment Exchanges?

Sir ASSHETON POWNALL: I want to ask a question with regard to the boards of assessors. Large numbers of cases have been referred to them. Are the assessors to be kept on?

Miss BONDFIELD: The boards of assessors were set up as a temporary expedient pending the amendment of the
Act itself. They have worked with singular success, and as it is within administrative competence to continue them, I shall consider very carefully whether there is any other work with which they can usefully continue. But, broadly speaking, the courts of referees may regard the boards of assessors as a sub-committee for purposes which may be delegated to them. I can see a very useful future for the assessors.

Sir A. POWNALL: It is intended that the boards of assessors should continue with a somewhat different function from that which they now have. Is that the position?

Miss BONDFIELD: Yes.

Mr. E. BROWN: There is a good deal in what the Minister has said. I would point out that statutory condition number three will still remain, and that there may be cases where there is a difference of opinion regarding whether the applicant is capable of and available for work, quite apart from the fourth statutory condition.

Mr. WALLHEAD: lf, as it is assumed, what is now called the "Hayday formula" is accepted, I would like the right hon. Lady to tell us what reason she has for wanting to retain this particular Sub-section'? It has been pointed out that it is totally unnecessary, if Clause 4 is modified in the way we assume.

Miss BONDFIELD: I think the hon. Member is under a misapprehension. The 13 week review has to do with all the conditions for benefit. I doubt whether there is any large proportion of such cases as the hon. Member has in mind under the 13 week review. It is a much more routine thing than that.

Mr. MAXTON: If the work is 90 per cent. or more routine, why not have it done by the ordinary officials of the Department in the ordinary course of their duty, rather than by this extra Ministerial agency which is working independently?

Miss BONDFIELD: I think it is important that I should make myself quite clear about this. I am most anxious to bring the workers and the employers and the chairmen of the courts of referees more intimately into touch with every-
thing connected with the administration, and I do not want to cut out any procedure by which they are being kept in touch with the work. I want to strengthen that side of the machinery, because I am convinced that unless we get the real co-operation of employers and workers we shall never be able to make a success of this business.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. KINGSLEY GRIFFITH: I beg to move, in page 6, line 21, to leave out from the word "that," to the end of line 25, and to insert instead thereof the words:
benefits shall continue to be payable to the claimant pending the decision of the court of referees, for such further period not exceeding six weeks in all as may be necessary.
6.0 p.m.
My Amendment would take away the option which the insurance officer is given, and it would allow the benefit to continue for a period not exceeding six weeks pending the decision of the court of referees. At the present time there is some doubt as to the meaning of the words:
Provided that the insurance officer may, pending the decision of the court of referees, give an interim determination allowing the claim.
Those words provide that the insurance officer may allow the claim. I should have thought, in view of what the Minister of Labour has said, that the greater part of the reviews of these claims is occupied with routine matters, that there would be no objection to laying down a general rule that until the court of referees -has decided adversely to the beneficiary the claim would continue to be paid. The reviews we are considering are not the result of a mistake, but the men have to come tip automatically to have their cases reviewed. There is no presumption that, when a man comes to have his case reviewed, he is a man whose benefit ought to be taken away. I think the presumption ought to operate the other way, and the benefits should continue to be paid.

Miss BONDFIELD: There seems to be some misunderstanding as to the meaning of this provision. Clause 6 has been drafted with a view to avoiding legislation by reference. The Bill would have been unintelligible without this Clause.
The present words have been found satisfactory.

Sir HERBERT SAMUEL: I think some one ought to take an opportunity of expressing our appreciation of the fact that this Bill does not contain so much legislation by reference. There is always a temptation in Bills of this kind to legislate by reference, and one of the very worst examples of that kind of legislation was the Widows', Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Bill, which was the most terrible piece of drafting from that point of view. On this occasion the Minister of Labour has reprinted whole sections from previous Acts, and I think the Committee ought to express its appreciation of that fact. I hope the wise example set by the Minister of Labour will he followed by other Ministers.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I should like to draw attention to one point of obscurity—I refer to the words in the Amendment, "pending the decision of the court of referees." My recollection of the administration of unemployment insurance has become a little faint, but my recollection is that it is possible at the present time for the insurance officer to give an extension for six weeks after the 13 weeks. That is my recollection, although my memory is not quite clear on the point. If that is so, then all I would remark is that the effect of this Amendment would be simply to stiffen up the present procedure. That is how I think the Amendment would operate, but it is not a point of substance.

Miss BONDFIELD: I think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tam-worth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) is right.

Mr. GRIFFITH: I am satisfied with the explanation which has been given, and I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, 'by leave, withdrawn,

Sir A. POWNALL: I beg to move, in page 6, line 25, at the end, to insert the words:
(6) With regard to any claim which is the subject of an appeal under Sub-section (4) or which is the subject of review under Sub-section (5) the court of referees shall not make a final decision until the court has taken into consideration the records relating to such claimant submitted to the court in such manner as may be prescribed.
The central office has very full records of insurance history and of all payments, and where an appeal is lodged there should be an opportunity of laying before the court of referees a full history of the cage of a claimant. What is required is full information as regards the details of the number of contributions, how long a person has been out of employment, and the number of benefits paid to him. The Amendment leaves it to the Minister to prescribe how the record should be kept. I think it is highly desirable that details of this kind should be placed before the court of referees in case there is an appeal.

Miss BONDFIELD: I hope this Amendment will not be pressed. All those who are acquainted with the working of unemployment insurance are fully aware of the large amount of clerical work which is involved under the present system. If there is any special information required the court of referees may ask for it before coming to a decision.

Mr. O. STANLEY: The court of referees would have the records of previous Exchanges before them as well as the records of the particular Exchange concerned.

Miss BONDFIELD: A record for the last two years would be available.

Mr. STANLEY: But not beyond that.

Captain AUSTIN HUDSON: Would not the same information he available to the referees as was available before the new procedure? We want to secure uniformity of awards to a certain extent. I would like to know if the same information would be available?

Miss BONDFIELD: Certainly. Not only that, but there is a very great deal of information in addition available at Kew.

Amendment negatived.

Sir ROBERT ASKE: I beg to move, in page 7, line 1, after the word "that," to insert the words:
where the decision of the Court of Referees is not unanimous the claimant must within three days be informed in writing of the fact by the insurance officer and that.
There appears to be no provision in the Bill giving the claimant a statutory right to be informed whether the decision of the court of referees was or was not unanimous. It may be that the claimant would not have any knowledge as to whether any doubt bad arisen in his case. The only point that is raised in this Amendment is that the insurance officer shall, if the decision of the referees is not unanimous, give to the claimant notice of that fact, so that the claimant then knows that he has under the provisions of the Bill a right of appeal to the Umpire. I think it is only right that the claimant should be informed that he has that right of appeal, and I trust that the Minister will be able to see her way to accept the Amendment.

Miss BONDFIELD: The intention of Sub-section (6) of Clause 6 is precisely to give the claimant the right of appeal to the Umpire in all cases where the court of referees is not unanimous, and I am not sure that I want to tie down even to three days the period within which the claimant must, be notified of his rights. The normal procedure, I hope, will be that he will receive this information on the same day on which the case is heard—that he will be informed in court of his right of appeal. If the hon. Member is not satisfied with the way in which the Clause is drafted, I will see if I can make it perfectly clear on Report, but I would rather not be pinned down to this particular set of words.

Mr. STEPHEN: I should like to say a word on this Amendment, because we have been rather unfortunate in Glasgow with respect td decisions of courts of referees, and when my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) and myself appeared before the Morris Committee we drew attention to that fact. The practice of the court of referees in Glasgow has been that, when they have come to a decision, they have not informed the applicant of that decision at the meeting of the court, but the decision was communicated to him some time afterwards. The result has been that in hundreds of cases people who have had no trade union connection, or who have lost their trade union connection owing to their being unemployed, have never had the opportunity
of asking to be allowed to go to the Umpire under the provisions of the Act of 1927. The Minister has said, in reply to the hon. Member who moved this Amendment, that she hopes that the practice is going to be that the applicant will get his decision at the court of referees, and that she would consider if on the Report stage she can get something even more satisfactory than is suggested in the Amendment. I want to press upon the Minister the importance of this point, that the applicant, if the decision is against him, must have an opportunity of stating the reasons why he should be allowed to prosecute his claim before the Umpire, as would be the case in any other court. I am quite satisfied to leave it with the assurance of the Minister, but I wanted to make the point here, because it is a point of tremendous importance, that the applicant, if his claim is refused by the court of referees, should have the right at least to give to that court reasons, which the court will decide upon, as to whether he should not be allowed to go to the Umpire. So far it has worked automatically in Glasgow. They have simply said, "The court has decided that you are not allowed to go to the Umpire," and the applicant has never asked, has never had the opportunity of asking, to go to the Umpire. I hope the Minister will go into this matter again.

Mr. K. GRIFFITH: I would point out that this really is not just a drafting Amendment. It is necessary to have something like this in the Bill in order to give effect to one of the most important of the recommendations of the Morris Committee, who, on page 36 of their Report, say:
Where it is necessary to obtain leave to appeal, intimation to this effect should he given to the claimant. The form should state the decision, whether it is unanimous or not, the right of appeal, and that the claimant should continue to sign the Register at the Exchange.
We cannot leave these matters, which are absolutely vital in order that the right of appeal may be claimed, either to some form which will he made out, or to the mere intention of the Court. It has got to be quite clearly stated, because, if this be not done, we want to be able to point to the Section in the Act of Parliament which has been contravened.
If it were contravened it would be most serious, and would destroy the right of appeal to the Umpire, because the applicant would not know that he had a right of appeal. Therefore, while thanking the Minister for the intimation of her readiness to deal with the matter on Report, I want to emphasise the absolute necessity of having in the Bill some definite words dealing with this matter.

Miss BONDFIELD: I think, myself, that I should like to say, not that the insurance officer should inform the claimant, but that the Court of Referees should do so, using some such words as:
shall be notified of the fact by the Court of Referees.
I am not very clear yet as to the period of three days, but I hope to make arrangements whereby the notification will be given to the claimant in writing before he leaves the Court.

Sir R. ASKE: In view of the assurance which the Minister has given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: I beg to move, in page 7, line 2, to leave out the word "six," and to insert instead thereof the word "two."
The reason why I and some of my hon. Friends have put down this Amendment is that in our view six months is a ridiculously long time to give to anyone in which to make up his mind as to whether or not he wants to appeal. Surely, if he thinks he has ground for appeal, he would appeal before six months have elapsed. If he has six months to think of the matter, fresh grievances are liable to arise in his mind; it delays the whole machinery of the Department, and drags on the proceedings, so that there can be no finality at all. Surely, anyone who thinks that he has just ground for appealing can decide to do that within two months, and I fail to see what advantage there is in the longer period. I know that Members of Parliament get letters from constituents who think that, because they have six months, they can leave their appeals to the last minute. When that is done, facts are overlooked, whereas, if an appeal is made within a reasonable period, such as two months, the matters in question are fresh in everybody's mind. If this Amendment were accepted,
the effect would be really to speed up appeals. I do not wish in any way to obstruct the passage of the Clause, but I think that this Amendment would be to the advantage, not only of the Department, but of applicants who considered that they had a just claim.

Miss BONDFIELD: As far as we are concerned, we should rather welcome this suggestion from a purely Departmental point of view, but the present position is that there is no limit at all, and the Umpire may be appealed to after even as long as two years. I believe that there is a case now under review which is two years old, and which the Umpire has to take up because the right of appeal still exists. We felt that we were as drastic as we dared be in making the change from an unlimited time to six months, but we might perhaps consider a period of three months—[Interruption.] I am merely expressing a point of view. In this matter of appeals, the case in very often that of a member of a trade union who has to consult his organisation, and the organisation may decide to appeal on a particular line; but the machinery of the organisation is very slow to move. The case has to go to the branch, from the branch to the district, and from the district to the central executive, which may decide to make it a test case for appeal to the Umpire. That is the sort of case that arises with regard to demarcation of work in a trade dispute, for example, and it is in cases of that class that there have been very long delays in presenting appeals. From that standpoint, I think we should probably he well advised to stick to the limit which I have put in the Bill.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: Can I accept the offer of three months made by the right hon. Lady?

Miss BONDFIELD: I was speaking of what might be regarded as administratively reasonable.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: If that be administratively reasonable, it will meet my case entirely. I suggested two months instead of six months, but I am quite willing to accept the suggestion that it should be three months. I want to help the Department, and I know what an appalling mess they are going to be in over this Bill, with all the complications and all the difficulties due to putting in and leaving out Clauses—

The CHAIRMAN: Order!

Mr. SOMERVILLE: I have really nothing further to add, except to say that the suggestion of three months made by the Minister would be satisfactory to me, and I wish to move that the period be three months instead of the two months that I put down.

The CHAIRMAN: ft is too late for that.

Question put, "That the word 'six' stand part of -the Clause."

The Committee proceeded to a Division.

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: (seated and covered): Before the Division is recorded, I want to raise an objection to the numbers recorded in the Aye Lobby. After you, Sir, called out "Lock the doors," at least 20 Members forced their way beyond the door-keeper and went through. I protest against the votes of those Members being recorded.

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Robert Young): I called out "Lock the doors," and I presume the officer did his best to lock them and did it in his own way. I have repeatedly seen crowds at these doors under similar circumstances.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Do we understand, then, that if hon. Members force their way through beyond the doorkeeper they are entitled to do so?

The CHAIRMAN: I am not cognisant of the fact at all.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 272; Noes, 147.

Division No. 81.]
AYES.
[6.28 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Arnott, John
Barnes, Alfred John


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Aske, Sir Robert
Batey, Joseph


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Attlee, Clement Richard
Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Ayles, Walter
Bellamy, Albert


Alpass, J. H.
Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood


Amnion, Charles George
Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Bennett, Captain E.N.(Cardiff, Central)


Angell, Norman
Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Bennett, William (Battersea, South)


Benson, G.
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Quibeil, D. F. K.


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Rathbone, Eleanor


Birkett, W. Norman
Johnston, Thomas
Raynes, W. R.


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Bowen, J. W.
Jones, Rt. Hon Leif (Camborne)
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Rlley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Broad, Francis Alfred
Jowett, Ht. Hon. F. W.
Ritson, J.


Brockway, A. Fanner
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)


Bromfield, William
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Romeril, H. G.


Bromley, J.
Kelly, W. T.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Brothers, M.
Kennedy, Thomas
Rothschild, J. de


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Kinley, J.
Rowson, Guy


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Kirkwood, D.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Buchanan, G.
Knight, Holford
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Burgess, F. G.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Sanders, W. S.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk. N.)
Lathan, G.
Sandham, E.


Caine, Derwent Hall.
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Sawyer, G. F.


Cameron, A. G.
Law, A. (Rosendale)
Scott, James


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Lawrence, Susan
Scrymgeour, E.


Charleton, H. C.
Lawson, John James
Scurr, John


Chater, Daniel
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Sexton, James


Church, Major A. G.
Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Cluse, W. S.
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Clynes, Rt. Hon, John R.
Lees, J.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Sherwood, G. H.


Compton, Joseph
Lindley, Fred W.
Shield, George William


Cove, William G.
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Daggar, George
Longbottom, A. W.
Shillaker, J. F.


Dallas, George
Longden, F.
Shinwell, E.


Dalton, Hugh
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Lowth, Thomas
Simmons, C. J.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lunn, William
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Day, Harry
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Mac Donald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)


Dickson, T.
McEntee, V. L.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Mackinder, W.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Dukes, C.
MacLaren, Andrew
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Duncan, Charles
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Ede, James Chuter
McShane, John James
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Edmunds, J. E.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Egan, W. H.
Mansfield, W.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Eimley, Viscount
March, S.
Sorensen, R.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Markham, S. F.
Spero, Dr. G. E.


Foot, Isaac
Marley, J.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham. Upton)
Mathers, George
Stephen, Campbell


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Matters, L. W.
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Maxton, James
Strauss, G. R.


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Melville, Sir James
Sutton, J. E.


Gibbins, Joseph
Messor, Fred
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Gill, T. H.
Middleton, G.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)


Glassey, A. E.
Mills, J. E.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Gosling, Harry
Montague, Frederick
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Gossling, A. G.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Thurtle, Ernest


Gould, F.
Morley, Ralph
Tillett, Ben


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin,, Cent.)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Tinker, John Joseph


Gray, Miliner
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Tout, W. J.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Townend, A. E.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Mort, D. L.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Griffith, F, Kingsley (Middlestro' W.)
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Turner, B.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Muff, G.
Viant, S. P.


Groves, Thomas E.
Muggeridge, H. T.
Wallace, H. W.


Grundy, Thomas W.
Naylor, T. E.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Noel Baker, P. J.
Watkins, F. C.


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Oldfield, J. R.
Wellock, Wilfred


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
West, F. R.


Harris, Percy A.
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Owen. H. F. (Hereford)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Haycock, A. W.
Palin, John Henry
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Hayday, Arthur
Paling, Wilfrid
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Hayes, John Henry
Palmer, E. T.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Perry, S. F.
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Harboro')


Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Wise, E. F.


Herriotts, J.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Hirst, G. H. (York, W. R., Wentworth)
Phillips, Dr. Marion
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Hoffman, P. C.
Pole, Major D. G.



Hollins, A.
Potts, John S.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Price, M. P.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Whiteley.


Horrabin, J. F.
Pybus, Percy John





NOES.


Albery, Irving James
Fermoy, Lord
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Alexander, Sir Win. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Fielden, E. B.
Muirhead, A. J.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W.G.(Ptrsf'ld)


Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)
Ford, Sir P. J
O'Neill, Sir H.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Astor, Maj. Hon. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Peake, Capt. Osbert


Atkinson, C.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Ganzonl, Sir John
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Balfour. George (Hampstead)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Purbrick, R.


Berry, Sir George
Grace, John
Ramsbotham, H.


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Bird, Ernest Roy
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Ross, Major Ronald D.


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Boyce, H. L.
Hammersley, S. S.
Salmon, Major I


Bracken, B.
Hartington, Marquess of
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Haslam, Henry C.
Savery, S. S.


Buchan, John
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Butler, R. A.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Herbert, S.(York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine. C.)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Smithers, Waldron


Carver, Major W. H.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hurd, Percy A.
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm.,W.)
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Stuart, J. C. (Moray and Nairn)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Colman, N. C. D.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Thomson, Sir F.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Tinne, J. A.


Cranbourne, Viscount
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Long, Major Eric
Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Macquisten, F. A.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Wells, Sydney R.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Marjoribanks, E. C.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Meller, R. J.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Womersley, W. J.


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Elliot, Major Walter E
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)



Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Morrison Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Everard, W. Lindsay
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Captain Margesson and Captain Wallace.


Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Captain BOURNE: I beg to move, in page 7, line 23, at the end, to insert the words:
Provided that an insurance officer or a Court of Referees shall not revise a decision made by that officer or that Court, as the case may be, if an appeal against such decision is pending.
Under Sub-section (9) of the Clause as drafted, an insurance officer, or the court of referees, can alter a decision on any new facts being submitted. That has met with the general acceptance of the Committee, but I cannot think that either the insurance officer or the court of referees should have the power to alter a decision against which an appeal has been lodged until the appeal has been disposed of. What is the good of an appeal court if the person against whom the appeal is lodged can proceed to alter it? It should be quite clear that no
alteration can be made until the specific question on which the appeal has been lodged has been disposed of by the appeal court. I can hardly believe it was the intention of the Government to allow the decision to be reversed against which an appeal was pending until the appeal has been heard. That seems to me contrary to all our ideas of law and justice. Once an appeal has been lodged, all the proceedings on that appeal must be completed before the decision is altered by the superior court. Certainly that is the practice in Courts of Law and no injustice will follow if that procedure is carried out.

Mr. LAWSON: It has been emphasised all the way through that, provided it is unbiased and judicial in its decisions, it was highly desirable to avoid legal conduct and procedure and the legal
spirit, in the machinery for dealing with thee claims. It is true in the ordinary way that, if a case is going to a higher court, nothing more is said till it goes there, but in this case it is suggested that the insurance officer or court of referees shall not be allowed to revise a decision if new facts come to light which were not within their knowledge when they gave their decision. If the court of referees has new facts placed before it which justify a revision of its decision, that is the proper course to take rather than insist that the man shall go forward with his appeal. If fresh facts are placed before the court of referees, there is no need to go further with the case. It is very necessary, if we are to have the human side rather than the strictly legal side operating in connection with these courts, that there shall be an opportunity for revision if fresh evidence is adduced.

Amendment negatived.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 7.—(Provision as to payment of benefit).

Major GLYN: I beg to move, in page 8, line 10, to leave out from the word "benefit," to the word "by," in line 12, and to insert instead the words:
the insurance officer has disallowed the claim on the ground that either.
We have now reached Clause 7. Although the Prime Minister stated, in reply to a question earlier in the day, that only two lines of this Clause were affected by the fact that we do not know yet what form Clause 4 will take, I submit that this particular Clause is of great importance. It is the Clause which decides whether a man shall be entitled to claim a second period of benefit, and whether he is qualified to do- so or not. Obviously, that must refer back to the terms of Clause 4, and none of us knows what they are going to be. I submit that we are making the Committee stage a perfect farce; it is extremely difficult to discuss Clause 7 in this particular manner. I should like to ask the Government if they can give us some sort of undertaking that there will be no weakening of the machinery. We recognise two things. First of all, it is quite obvious, if a man is disqualified on account of his refusal to take work offered to him, that refers hack directly to Clause 4, the form of which we do not know. The
second possible disqualification is in the case of a man who belongs to a skilled trade and who is offered work in a trade which is not his own and which, if he accepted it, might be detrimental to his capacity as a skilled workman. Of course, he should not be disqualified. Nobody disputes that fact. It formed part of the 1927 Act, and I think every Member of the Committee wants to preserve the right of a man to maintain his efficiency in his proper job.
We feel, and feel very strongly, that we are put in an impossible position in carrying on the Committee stage of the Bill when obviously the whole of Clause 7, and not only two lines of it, are directly connected with Clause 4. Conceivably, therefore, the Minister may be able to throw some light upon this matter, although we understand that consultations are still proceeding as to what is to be the form of Clause 4. I would remind the Committee that we heard quite clearly from the Attorney-General what are the principles affected by Clause 7. If we can hear from the Minister, in answer to this Amendment, what is intended, I am sure that I and my hon. Friends will be very much obliged.

An HON. MEMBER: On a point of Order. Since this Amendment would be rendered unnecessary if the following Amendment—in page 8, line 12, to leave out from the word "benefit" to the word "because," in line 15—were put and carried, would it be in order to take the second Amendment first?

The CHAIRMAN: We have not reached the second Amendment.

Mr. LAWSON: The Prime Minister pointed out this afternoon that Clause 7 was one of the Clauses affected by the decision in reference to Clause 4, and he also pointed out that it would probably need some amendment on the Report stage. There is a pail of this Clause which refers to the transitional stage and which is not affected by that decision, and all I can say at this moment is that the general principle is one by which the Government would stand in regard to the non-suspension of benefit, and I scarcely need add anything, except that, as far as the general phrasing of the Clause is concerned, it will certainly receive consideration on the Report stage.

Mr. HARRIS: Can the hon. Gentleman say how it is proposed to amend Clause 7 temporarily until we reach the Report stage? We cannot let this Clause go through in its present form.

Major GLYN: After hearing what the Minister has said, I think we may assume that it means that we shall have ample time to discuss this Clause on Report; in fact, that we shall have A Committee stage and a Report stage, as we cannot discuss it properly now in Committee. If this is the Minister's view, and he will give us an undertaking to ensure ample time, I will ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Mr. LAWSON: I can only give the guarantee which was given by the Prime Minister this afternoon, and, I think, given later on by the Minister of Labour herself, that, in so far as this runs in conjunction with Clause 4 and with the time given to discuss that particular Clause, such time will be given on the Report stage. I cannot go further than the statement which was made on that occasion.

Major GLYN: On that, I think I am right in saying that the Prime Minister did confine his remarks to two lines. I think he said that lines 11 to 14 were the lines really affected, and that they were going to be moved out of the Clause and put back into it. My point is that you cannot take two lines out and discuss the Clause now. We must have all parts of the Clause; otherwise, it makes discussion impossible.

Mr. E. BROWN: The next Amendment, which is to remove the words after the word "benefit," in line 12, to the word "because," in line 15, deals with the present point. That will leave the Clause in order and open for discussion according to the knowledge which we possess.

Major GLYN: On the understanding that we shall have ample time for the whole of the Clause, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. LAWSON: I beg to move, in page 8, line 12, to leave out from the word "benefit" to the word "because," in line 15.
I wish merely formally to move this Amendment.

Major ELLIOT: I think it is rather curt on the part of the Parliamentary Secretary. I can only assume that he was engaged, perhaps, in some of the many duties of which all Under-Secretaries are aware. Perhaps he was engaged in some consultation with his right hon. Friend or with his hon. Friends below the Gangway as to what the draft of some new Sub-section was to be. I am certain that at least he must have the official brief on this subject, and I suggest that we might have the privilege of having it read to us. I do not want to place any strain upon the Parliamentary Secretary, who, heaven knows, suffers from strain enough in these days under a continual bombardment, not only from this side but from hon. Members behind him. Really, the proposal simply to omit these words does, after all, knock a very great deal out of the Clause. It brings to our minds how far hon. Members below the Gangway on this side of the House are right, that there is still a shade of the Attorney-General's formula to be left in the new Sub-section which is to be drafted. The hon. Members below the Gangway say, if I understand them aright, "You may shatter the Clause, as you will, but the aroma of the Attorney-General will hang round it still," and hon. Members below the Gangway on that side say:
Ah, love! Couldst thou and I with fate conspire,
To grasp this sorry scheme of things entire.
Would not we shatter it to bits, and then
Remould it nearer to the heart's desire?

Mr. MAXTON: We certainly ask for the loaf of bread.

Major ELLIOT: I always understood that the hon. Members below the Gangway, when it came to a jug of wine, would make stronger objections. We could, all the more, if we could have the Minister of Labour singing beside us in the wilderness; then
Wilderness were Paradise enow!
But we on this side are in the wilderness, and, no doubt, we shall be replaced before very long by the Minister if discussions go on as they are at present. The point is, that the "Hayday formula"
has not been carried out. Our difficulty in regard to Clause 7 is due to the fact that we do not know where we stand with regard to the "Hayday formula." We are dealing with the "Hayday formula" and the Attorney-General's principle. We have not had the conflict between these two resolved, and, until we have the conflict resolved, it will not be possible for this House intelligently to discuss the Amendments which are before it. Therefore, I ask the Parliamentary Secretary, and failing him, the Minister of Labour, whether it is possible to elucidate a little more the Amendment which she is making and to say whether she intends on the Report stage to move in again in Clause 7 words dealing with the new Sub-section which she intends to draft and have put upon the Paper, or will the Clause, as we part with it now, with the words left out as she desires, actually be the form in which it will subsequently appear in the Bill as Clause 7? Is she looking forward to the redrafting of Clause 7 accelerating the redrafting of Clause 4? What is her intention, in so far as she is able to give an inkling of her intention at this stage?

Miss BONDFIELD: The simple and sole purpose of putting down this Amendment is to expedite business. It is the only part of Clause 7 which deals with Clause 4, and, therefore, we move it out with the intention of moving it back again on Report stage when Clause 4 is before the House. The Prime Minister, when he made his opening statement this afternoon, also referred to Clause 15. It was decided that both these should be moved out in order that Clause 7 should be kept in line with Clause 4.

Mr. E. BROWN: I am bound to agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot) that an explanation was desirable. It is obvious that the words to be left out would expedite business, but the distinction is that these words refer to the permanent conditions for benefit whereas the words left in refer to the Act of 1927, to benefits received under the transitional provisions of the Bill. Surely, that is the difference between the one and the other. We need not follow the hon. and gallant Member in his excursions into that delightful poem; nevertheless, we are making a change in the
structure of the Clause due, of course, to the decision taken by the Committee last Thursday.

Major ELLIOT: I am much indebted to the Minister for her explanation. I ask for the attention of hon. Members below the Gangway to this matter, because business cannot be done in the absence of the leader of the fourth party. The Minister has now stated that Sub-section (2) and Sub-section (3) will be moved in again on Report.

Miss BONDFIELD: On a point of Order. I am afraid that I did not express myself clearly. What I intended to say was that the part of the revised Clause 4 which will be relevant to Clause 7 will be reinstated.

7.0 p.m.

Major ELLIOT: Quite so. But the new Sub-section which is to be drafted will refer to some extent to the provisoes in the existing Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Clause 4. That refers to certain things which my hon. Friends dislike, and they must have some reference to these Sub-sections or the points involved in them, or there will be no point in the Minister saying on Clause 7 that they will have reference to the new Clause 4. We can only discuss these things in the abstract, because we have no Clause 4 before us, and the House will look with keen interest, and in many quarters with keen anxiety, for the appearance of the new Clause 4.

Captain A. HUDSON: Are we quite sure that in accepting this Amendment we shall be able later to deal with what may be in Clause 4? The old Clause 4, particularly Sub-section (3), dealt with a person offered a job, not, in his own employment, but what has been called suitable employment not in his own occupation, and in this Clause we have to say who is to decide what is suitable. Many of us are not quite certain, after what took place on Thursday, whether it still remains that he has to take the job.

The CHAIRMAN: This Amendment does not deal with that point; only with the provision for payment of benefit in respect of Sub-sections (2) and (3).

Captain HUDSON: What is to be left out was vitally affected by Sub-section (3), and suppose that on the Report stage, something like Sub-section (3) is
put back, shall we be safeguarded by seeing that something like suitable machinery to deal with it will be put in?

Mr. ATKINSON: I suggest that the Clause means little as it stands, and we are asked to take out nine-tenths in the hope that in some future stage it may mean something. Would it not be a more sensible thing to leave out the Clause, and bring it in when we know what it means?

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member may raise that on the Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. ATKINSON: We are opposing this Amendment, because it will make the Clause ineffective, and the Committee will be asked to approve a Clause which means little or nothing. The obvious course is to remove it.

Mr. KNIGHT: The effect of the fishing of the hon. Member has been to make the waters muddier than ever. It is a simple point. The Committee are asked to take out certain words connected with provisions which are not to be proceeded with, and, as a matter of business, it is a perfectly reasonable request. Since these words are connected with Sub-sections which have been withdrawn, there is no reason for them remaining in this Clause, and their omission is being formally moved. It is a mere matter of drafting.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: The position is most difficult. We are dealing with a Clause which refers back to a Clause which has been omitted, and it is a matter of the greatest difficulty to decide what Clause 7 is to amount to. The Parliamentary Secretary said, very frankly, that he could not answer an Amendment on the Paper, because he did not know what the effect would be when Clause 7 was put back. My hon. Friend on this side very kindly withdrew his Amendment, but the admission was there from the Minister that he himself did not know what the effect would be. Certain words are now to be added, and certain words withdrawn. What is the Clause to amount to? I am at a loss, stupid as I may be, to understand what it is to mean, and I think the Clause should be withdrawn and brought back.

Miss BONDFIELD: It is important that the Committee should understand that Clause 7, with the words deleted as my Amendment suggests, will read complete in itself. I am asking the Committee to say that there shall be no suspension of benefits where a doubt arises until the point is settled. That is the principle, and it does not depend on the words which I propose to leave out, because if you turn to line 16—
or because he has failed to satisfy
etc., the principle obtains whether the words proposed to be left out are in or not. I ask the Committee to give a decision on that important point.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have not the least doubt that what the right hon. Lady (Miss Bondfield) says is perfectly true, that this Clause makes sense if you leave out the words, but the situation is that we are asked to pass a Clause which is intended also to refer in the future to some new Clause, not now in existence, and of which we do not know the contents. If there was any sense in withdrawing Clause 5 for this reason, it applies with even greater force to Clause 7. It would be far better for the Government to make sure what they are going to ask the House on the Report stage, rather than ask the Committee to give them Clause 7 now. It vitiates the discussion as it did on Sub-section (6), and it is asking too much of the Committee to ask it to pass this Clause in vacuo without regard to future conditions, to which it is intended to apply, in the belief that you will be able to insert some words that will make sense of it. Nobody can decide before we have the intricate and important points which must come before us, whether we want this Clause. It would be far better for the Committee and for legislation if the Minister were to withdraw this Clause.

Mr. FOOT: There is some advantage surely in passing the Clause, because it will mean that the Committee will have dealt with the question that the benefit is not to be suspended while a case is under inquiry. Inasmuch as we shall have so much time occupied on the Re-
port stage, it is well that the Committee should come to an opinion on that central principle, leaving the alterations to be made later. It is essential to save such time as we can on the Report stage, and, if we can by the passing of this Clause in its present form relieve the burdens on the House, it will be a wise thing to do it.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: We are anxious to help the Minister of Labour but we must have one point clear. Are the Sub-sections (2) and (3) referred to here in Clause 4 to remain as they stand as at the present time?

The CHAIRMAN: Sub-sections (2) and (3) are withdrawn and out of the Bill entirely. They are not under discussion now.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: If that is the case it is really the answer to the point that I am making. It is perfectly ridiculous to ask the Committee to pass the Clause as it stands and the Minister would be well advised to withdraw it.

Major GLYN: There is not a single Member who does not agree with the principle which the Clause attempts to carry out. We object to the procedure, because we think it highly dangerous, and, if we had attempted anything of that sort, hon. Members on the opposite benches would have kept us up several nights. If Parliament is to do this work properly, it is impossible to consider the Clause when the major Clause on which it depends has been withdrawn, and we do not know what form it will take. The Minister gave us an assur

ance that we should have time on Re port to discuss this Clause. We object to the system whereby it is possible to force through a Clause—in some other Bill it might be rather an objectionable Clause—merely by taking out certain words and saying that they are going to be put back. There has been a lot of talk about the omnibus nature of Clause 4. This is a trailer proposal, and there will be two or three trailers to the omnibus. We do not know what will be the speed or nature of the omnibus until we see the new Clause, and we object to the Committee being asked to say "Yea" or "Nay."

Miss BONDFIELD: I am anxious to clear the mind of the Committee on this point which seems to me simple. There are four conditions of benefit, of which only one is in suspense. This Bill refers to the other three, and the House will have ample opportunity to decide on the other. I wish to say that I did not use the word "omnibus." It was used on the other side of the House, and I object to it.

Mr. O. STANLEY: I apologise. The Minister complains that I have misquoted her, and I confess that I have done so. I used the word "omnibus," and she used the words "a composite Clause." I leave it to Members of the Committee to say whether it is such a grievous misquotation as the right hon. Lady would suggest.

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 278; Noes, 139.

Division No. 82.]
AYES.
[7.17 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Bondfleid, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.


Adamson, w. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Bowen, J. W.
Cocks, Frederick Seymour


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Compton, Joseph


Alpass, J. H.
Broad, Francis Alfred
Cove, William G.


Ammon, Charles George
Brockway, A. Fenner
Daggar, George


Angell, Norman
Bromfield, William
Dallas, George


Arnott, John
Bromley, J.
Dalton, Hugh


Aske, Sir Robert
Brothers, M.
Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)


Ayles, Walter
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Day, Harry


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Denman, Hon. R. D.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Buchanan, G.
Dickson, T.


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Burgess, F. G.
Dudgeon, Major C. R.


Barnes, Alfred John
Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Dukes, C.


Batey, Joseph
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)
Duncan, Charles


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Beckham)
Calne, Derwent Hall-
Ede, James Chuter


Bellamy, Albert
Cameron, A. G.
Edge, Sir William


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Cape, Thomas
Edmunds, J. E.


Bennett, Captain E. N.(Cardiff, Central)
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Charleton, H. C.
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)


Benson, G.
Chafer, Daniel
Egan, W. H.


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Church, Major A. G.
Eimley, Viscount


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Cluse, W. S.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)


Foot, Isaac
Longbottom, A. W.
Sanders, W. S.


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Longden, F.
Sandham, E.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Sawyer, G. F.


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Lowth, Thomas
Scott, James


Gibbins, Joseph
Lunn, William
Scrymgeour, E.


Gill, T. H.
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Scurr, John


Glassey, A. E.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Sexton, James


Gosling, Harry
McEntee, V. L.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Gossling, A. G.
Mackinder, W.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Gould, F.
McKinlay, A.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Graham, Ht. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Sherwood, G. H.


Gray, Milner
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Shield, George William


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
McShane, John James
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Grenfell, O. R. (Glamorgan)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Shillaker, J. F.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Mlddlesbro1 W.)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Shinwell, E.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Mansfield, W.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Groves, Thomas E.
March, S.
Simmons, C. J.


Grundy, Thomas W.
Markham, S. F.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Marley, J.
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Mathers, George
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Matters, L. W.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Maxton, James
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Harbord, A.
Melville, Sir James
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Hardie, George D.
Messer, Fred
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Harris, Percy A.
Millar, J. D.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Mills, J. E.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Montague, Frederick
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Haycock, A. W.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Mayday, Arthur
Morley, Ralph
Sorensen, R.


Hayes, John Henry
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Spero, Dr. G. E.


Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Stamford, Thomas W.


Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Stephen, Campbell


Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Mort, D. L.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Herriotts, J.
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)
Strauss, G. R.


Hirst, G. H. (York, W. R., Wentworth)
Muff, G.
Sutton, J. E.


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Muggeridge, H. T.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Hoffman, p. C.
Murnin, Hugh
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)


Hollins, A.
Naylor, T. E.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Horrabin, J. F.
Noel Baker, P. J.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Oldfield, J. R.
Thurtle, Ernest


Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Tillett, Ben


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Tinker, John Joseph


Johnston, Thomas
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Tout, W. J.


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Palin, John Henry
Townend, A. E.


Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Palmer, E. T.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Turner, B.


Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Perry, S. F.
Viant, S. P.


Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Wallace, H. W.


Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Kelly, W. T.
Phillips, Dr. Marlon
Watkins, F. C.


Kennedy, Thomas
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermilne)


Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Pole, Major D. G.
Wellock, Wilfred


Kinley, J.
Potts, John S.
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Kirkwood, D.
Price, M. P.
West, F. R.


Knight, Holford
Pybus, Percy John
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Quibell, D. F. K.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Lang, Gordon
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Raynes, W. R.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Lathan, G.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Law, Albert (Bolton)
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Law, A. (Rosendale)
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Lawrence, Susan
Ritson, J.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Lawson, John James
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)
Wise, E. F.


Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Romeril, H. G.
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)


Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Rothschild, J. de
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Lees, J.
Rowson, Guy



Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Salter, Dr. Alfred
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Lindley, Fred W.
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Mr. Paling and Mr. Whiteley.


Lloyd, C. Ellis
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)



NOES.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Beaumont, M. W.
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Chadwick. Sir Robert Burton


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Bird, Ernest Roy
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J.A.(Birm.,W.)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Conway, Sir W. Martin


Astor, Viscountess
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Cranbourne, Viscount


Atkinson, C.
Brawn, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.


Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Butler, R. A.
Croom-Johnson, R. P.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Butt, Sir Alfred
Davies, Dr. Vernon


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Carver, Major W. H.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Castle Stewart, Earl of
Dawson, Sir Philip




Ougdate, Capt. T. L.
Lane Fox, Rt. Hon. George R.
Savery, S. S.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Simms, Dr- John M. (Co. Down)


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Ferguson, Sir John
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Fermoy, Lord
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)
Smithers, Waldron


Fielden, E. B.
Long, Major Eric
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Fison, F. G. Clavering
Macquisten, F. A.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Ford, Sir P. J.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Galbraith, J. F. W,
Marjoribanks, E. C.
Stuart, J. C. (Moray and Nairn)


Ganzonl, Sir John
Meller, R. J.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Thomson, Sir F,


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Tinne, J. A.


Grace, John
Morrison Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Turton, Robert Hugh


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London;
Muirhead, A. J.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W.G.(Ptrsfld)
Wallace, Capt. O. E. (Hornsey)


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
O'Neill, Sir H.
Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.


Hammersley, S. S.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Hartington, Marquess of
Peake, Captain Osbert
Wayland, Sir William A.


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Wells, Sydney R.


Haslam, Henry C.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Womersley, W. J.


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Ramsbotham, H.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Reynolds, Col. Sir James
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell



Hurd, Percy A.
Salmon, Major I.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Samuel, A, M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Captain Sir George Bowyer and


Kindersley, Major G. M.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Marquess of Titchfield.


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart



Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 8.—(Amendment with respect to supplementary schemes.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: In introducing the Bill for Second Reading the Minister of Labour said that she had tried to avoid legislation by reference, but the ordinary layman on reading this Clause would not have the faintest idea what it was about. We ought to have some statement from the Government of what is contemplated in this Clause, especially as there appear in the Clause the words, "with the concurrence of the Treasury." It looks as if there are to be charges under this Clause which do not now fall upon public funds. The Clause has reference to Section 20 of the principal Act, which provides that a scheme may be submitted to the Minister by joint industrial councils or associations of employers and employés for insurance outside the provisions of the ordinary insurance schemes that we have in mind. I want to know what use is going to be made of this Clause, and why it is necessary. Has anything arisen in the working of the principal Act to make it necessary that the Minister should participate in the ad-
ministration of such a scheme, and is it intended that public funds should be used, with the concurrence of the Treasury, in respect of this part of the Bill? The word "participation" may mean anything or it may mean nothing.
This Clause has been drafted in a very wide manner, and it seems to me on the face of it that there ought to be some control by Parliament of the degree of participation and the kind of participation. We should not hand over to the Commissioners absolute power, and I am not sure that the best way would not be to insist that somewhere in Clause 8 there should be provision made so that the Minister in exercising powers under this Clause should have to come to Parliament with Regulations. That would provide Parliament with an opportunity of seeing what she or her successors may do with this Clause, and it would give us from time to time some idea of the sum of public money which is involved. Before passing from this Clause we ought to have an explanation on the points that I have raised. I should also like to ask whether the right hon. Lady has any knowledge of further supplementary schemes being put into operation. The Clause is drawn in very wide terms and, as money is involved, we ought to have an assurance that the powers under this
Clause are not going to be widely used without Parliament knowing what is being done.

Sir BASIL PETO: This Clause provides for the payment of such fees as may be determined by the Minister. I want to know to whom these fees are likely to be paid. Surely those whom the Minister will employ to participate in these schemes will be civil servants, who already are in receipt of their ordinary salaries. Will the right hon. Lady explain and make it quite clear to whom these fees and charges are to be paid, and how widely this power is to be used. Can she give us any idea of the amount the Minister will ask the Treasury to advance. It is rather an unusual procedure for the Committee to give power to a Minister to incur any expenditure in the promotion of these schemes subject only to the Treasury; and not subject to Parliament. A perfectly unknown amount may be incurred without any authority or knowledge of Parliament, provided the Treasury is complacent, as they probably would be under the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, although in some respects he has been putting a curb on the energies and extravagances of the present Government. In this respect I should like to know whether it is a trivial amount, and, above all, to whom it is likely that these fees or charges will be paid?

Miss BONDFIELD: Hon. Members have not done me the honour to read the explanatory memorandum, which says:
This Clause will give the Minister power to participate in the administration of a Supplementary scheme; for example, by permitting the ordinary unemployment books to be used for the payment of the contributions required under the Supplementary scheme and by permitting the machinery of the Employment Exchanges to be used for the payment of benefit, so far as desired by the promoters of the scheme, subject to the reimbursement of the Minister for the cost of such participation.
I want to assure hon. Members that I am safeguarding the fund by providing that whatever extra cost may be incurred shall be returnable by the payment of fees from the scheme so participated in and not from the Treasury. The whole question has arisen out of the situation I inherited in relation to the building trade. They were trying to work out,
very laudably, a scheme for the payment of wet time and they wanted to do so by making regular contributions. It would have been of immense advantage if it could have been done in conjunction with the national Unemployment Insurance machinery, but we could not undertake to consider participation unless we were assured that any additional cost incurred was recoverable. The existing Acts lay it down that no special scheme can come into operation except by special Order which must be laid before the House for 20 days before it comes into effect.

Mr. LEIF JONES: The right hon. Lady has read from the explanatory memorandum in which are the words "reimbursement of the Minister." I do not find any provision in the Bill regarding the reimbursement of the Minister, and I should like to know where it is made clear in the Bill. Is it absolutely certain that no cost will be incurred which will not be repaid by the supplementary scheme?

Miss BONDFIELD: That will be laid down in the special Order.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I think this is the explanation which the hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. Leif Jones) desires. The money is provided for under the Clause itself. What has caused the trouble in the mind of the hon. Member is this. The money for this purpose is not in the first instance provided by the Treasury, it is defrayed out of any funds which may be available for the purposes of the scheme. In that case they are not provided by the Treasury but by the people who want supplementary schemes.

Miss BONDFIELD: Yes.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I gather that the reason why the concurrence of the Treasury is asked for is that so far as there are any charges incurred by the Department for the services of any officials, the price which the scheme is to pay to the Department for the services of officials is to be assessed with the concurrence of the Treasury. There is no money found out of public funds. The money is found by the people who run the supplementary scheme.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 9.—(Provisions with respect to payment out of Unemployment Fund of travelling expenses of insured contributor.)

Sir A. POWNALL: I beg to move, in page 8, line 37, to leave out the words "out of moneys provided by Parliament."
This is rather a technical matter and, therefore, I hope the Committee will allow me to explain the purpose of the Amendment. Travelling expenses in the past have been allowed under Section 30 of the Act of 1920, but this Section of the Act of 1920 refers to Section 2 of the original Labour Exchanges Act, 1909, under which the Exchequer were enabled to pay travelling expenses to a person who travelled to a place where work had been found for him. There was no provision for paying travelling expenses in eases where work had not been found. The present Bill provides for the payment of travelling expenses to persons even in cases where work has not been found, and in the Third Schedule, Section 30 of the Act of 1920, which allowed these expenses to be paid, is to be repealed. The question obviously arises, what does the Bill mean when it says "out of money provided by Parliament"? How are they to be provided? Under what Act, in view of the fact that the Act of 1920 is not now in force? There is a further point with regard to those for whom work has not been found and for whom no provision has been made. I think it important that the right hon. Lady should clear up the point as to where the money is coming from in view of the fact that she is taking power to cancel Section 30 of the 1920 Act, under which this money has been paid in the past. The Employment Exchanges Act does not provide the answer, and the right hon. Lady must produce other methods for finding the money to pay these travelling expenses.

Miss BONDFIELD: Briefly the position is this. That under Sub-section (1) of this Clause I am making arrangements so that money can be paid out of the Unemployment Insurance Fund, and the Exchequer shall be reimbursed to that extent. Therefore, I see no object in deleting these words. The hon. Member has further Amendments to this Clause, but if it is amended in the way he pro-
poses it would leave us in this position, that in the case of the people who do not get work a sum could be repaid from the Unemployment Fund, but not in the case of the people who do get work. That is not what the hon. Member desires.

Amendment negatived.

Sir A. POWNALL: I beg to move, in page 8, line 42, to leave out all words from the word "may," to the word "repay" in page 9, line 1, and to insert instead thereof the words
if that person, through no fault of his own, has not obtained employment at that place.
The Clause, as it now stands, I submit, opens the door to fraud. It allows travelling expenses to be paid in cases where a man goes to another place in search of work whether he finds it or no. It is possible that a man in the North of England, hearing that a cup-tie is being played in London may think it necessary to come to London to look for work, or vice versa. I think there should be some check, some conditions imposed such as the Minister may prescribe. Therefore, I suggest that these words should be inserted in order to stop the possibility of fraud on the lines I have indicated.

Captain CAZALET: There are one or two points about which we are not yet clear. What is the authority that sanctions these payments? Is there any limit or control? Are they revised or sanctioned by the Minister? During the last five years under the Conservative Government there were, I believe, Supplementary Estimates to cover expenses which had been incurred by moving families from their own localities to places where work had been found. Will this Clause in any way alter the procedure or does the Minister intend to continue the same policy as the last Government?

Miss BONDFIELD: The purpose of the Clause is that it shall be possible to obtain out of the Unemployment Fund the repayment of part of the expenses so incurred. We do not wish to limit that repayment to the cases of those who have found work; in other words we want to be in the position to obtain part payment of the expenses of the man who is sent out for a job and has found it or not found it, as the case may be. In
all cases where men are sent out "on spec." we want to be able to obtain a repayment from the Unemployment Fund.

Captain CAZALET: Then you leave to the Employment Exchange full authority where they think there is a reasonable expectation of getting work?

Miss BONDFIELD: It is under very careful supervision and under strict rules.

Mr. FOOT: I would like to ask whether there can he any reasonable possibility of the trouble to which the hon. Member for East Lewisham (Sir A. Pownall) referred ever arising? I think that on reflection the hon. Member will realise that the illustration he gave was very unfortunate.

Sir A. POWNALL: Why?

Mr. FOOT: Is it conceivable that the machinery of the Exchanges would be such that a man who wanted to go from London to Newcastle for a Cup Tie would be able to satisfy the insurance officer just at that time that he was going to Newcastle simply for the purpose of inquiring for work? The man could not go without inquiry being made. No insurance officer would allow the Government to be made responsible for the pounds of expenditure that would be incurred simply upon a conjecture, simply upon the suggestion of the man himself. When the hon. Member thinks of the situation he will realise that his suggestion is rather unfair. At all events I think better of the unemployed than the hon. Member does. He has suggested that a man would go through a system of fraud in order to get the money for his journey. I think the suggestion should be withdrawn as being a reflection on the unemployed.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The hon. Member animadverts very severely on my hon. Friend. There is no question of my hon. Friend wanting to cast aspersions on anyone. [HON. MEMBERS: "He was doing it!"] If any hon. Member really wishes to pretend here or in the country that we do not here and there get a case of fraud amongst unemployed people, just as we do amongst the people of any other class, then, of course, I cannot understand him. What my hon. Friend referred to was merely the possibility of some quite
exceptional case arising, and in the illustration that he gave he probably spoke more for amusement than otherwise. All the same, if anyone imagines that these cases do not sometimes occur, he is wrong. They do sometimes occur. The percentage is a very small one, and we are all agreed that it is small, but I am not going to sit by and hear my hon. Friend criticised, for, while the percentage is small, the Minister knows as well as I do that such cases do occur. I have personal knowledge of one or two cases that have occurred—where a man has been transferred from the North to the South after a long railway journey. He did not happen to be met when the train arrived and he did not take the trouble to go on from London to his destination, which was comparatively near London. I have not the least doubt that in the Department there are details of that particular case with the name and dates and every thing connected with it. In that case, as I have said, a man did not trouble to go on to his destination from London. I do not say that that was because he wished to attend a Cup Tie. Although the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot) got up in a state of indignation and attacked my hon. Friend, he must realise that sometimes cases of this kind have occurred and that Members of this Committee are right in calling attention to them.

Mr. ALPASS: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it really necessary, in order to secure protection in one or two cases out of several millions—that would be about the percentage—there should be inserted in this Clause an Amendment which casts aspersions on the character of the unemployed?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The answer to the hon. Member is simple. If, as he says, the danger is practically negligible, why have the Clause at all or the Amendment? It is perfectly right and proper that provision should be made to meet the occasional cases of malpractice in this respect, as in any other respect in any other class.

Captain HAROLD BALFOUR: Do the travelling expenses include an allowance for meals in cases where a man is sent to find work? In commercial life the traveller receives his salary
and a definite allowance during the time that he is travelling on a firm's business. Is there any scale laid down which will allow a man to buy food on his journey? If not, such a Regulation should be made.

Sir A. POWNALL: Is it not the case that on an average of years several thousands of cases are investigated by the Department, where fraud is alleged, and in hundreds of cases is it not brought home to the people concerned? I agree that the number of such cases may be very small out of the many millions of insured people, but it is an appreciable number in the course of a year.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. GOSSLING: I beg to move, in page 9, line 4, at the end, to insert the words
Provided that where such expenses are incurred at the request of an employer and the employer fails to provide employment for the insured contributor the expenses so incurred, together with wages at the recognised rate for the time, given by the insured contributor, shall be recoverable from the employer.
We are often being urged that capital and labour shall get together. In some instances national agreements between employers and employed are in existence, and these agreements provide that where workmen are sent to a job the employer should pay their travelling expenses and such lodging allowances as are necessary. There is, however, a tendency on the part of some employers, instead of sending men from their works to a job, to apply to an Employment Exchange to send men. Such employers do not always ask for the number of men that they require, but ask for more than they can employ. Men are sent from the Exchange, they get to the job, and they are refused work. In some cases they have travelled many miles from their homes. Sometimes they are told to call again in the morning. They go and get lodgings, present themselves at the job the following morning, and then are told that there is no work available for them. A man in such a case as that returns to his own town, and under the existing provisions he can, I understand, snake a claim on the Exchange for payment of his return fare, because he has failed to get a job to which he was sent. My Amendment suggests that the employer who asks for men to be sent to a job and then fails to employ them, should be called upon to pay reasonable expenses incurred, and that neither the Exchequer
nor the Insurance Fund should be used for that purpose. It is only fair and right that people who carry out national agreements should be protected against the unscrupulous employer who wishes to escape an obligation.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON: The case put forward by my hon. Friend in this Amendment is one that will secure considerable sympathy in the Committee, especially from those who have had some experience of men being sent from one part of the country to another in search of work. The actual words of this Sub-section provide that where any payment has been made on account of the expenses of travelling to any place for the purpose of obtaining employment, the Minister may, whether employment has been found or not, repay out of the Unemployment Fund such part of the advance as may be prescribed. In reference to the point put by my hon. Friend, however much we might desire to give effect to it, I think his Amendment would not achieve the result which he desires. I think we ought to be quite clear on this point. If an employer definitely asks that a man should be sent from the Employment Exchange for certain employment and asks the Exchange to advance the money for the man's expenses, he undertakes to recoup the Employment Exchange; but if the man is entitled to any part of his fare from the Unemployment Fund as a result of going there, it is paid back to the employer. In that particular case the employer accepts financial responsibility. There is, of course, the other case to which the hon. Member has referred. If the employer fails to provide employment, the Department can hold him liable for repayment of the full fare unless, as a matter of administration, it is decided not to press for such repayment, say, on account of errors of selection on the part of the Employment Exchange. Generally speaking, it would not be wise to press for the repayment of this money from the employer in the way proposed in the Amendment for the simple reason that it would make employers more cautious as to whether they engaged men through the Employment Exchanges or not.

Mr. GOSSLING: May I submit to the Parliamentary Secretary that this is not
only a question of making employers cautious about engaging men through the Employment Exchanges. I submit that it would make employers cautious about asking for more men than they can employ, if they have to bear the travelling expenses. I could quote numerous cases of men who have been sent on journeys involving anything from 15s. to £1 in railway fare. A man may be told to go on such a journey and bring his tools with him. When he reaches his destination he is told to see the employer in the morning. He gets lodgings for the night and presents himself next morning to the employer, who informs him that there is no work for him. It is to prevent abuses of that character that these words are intended, and I think that the Parliamentary Secretary and the whole Committee, if this matter was given the true interpretation, would desire to stop abuses of the kind I have described. I am certain there are not many employers who would act in this way, but there are some who do so, and there is a tendency for unscrupulous employers to evade the responsibility which honourable employers undertake.

Mr. LAWSON: I agree that it is very undesirable that the type of employer described by my hon. Friend should ask for men to be sent from one part of the country to another if there is no employment for them, but in that case the man is recouped out of the Unemployment Fund.

Mr. GOSSLING: They are not recouped.

Mr. LAWSON: I submit to my hon. Friends that if this Amendment were accepted it would interfere to some extent with the average employer throughout the country notifying vacancies through the Employment Exchanges. It would impose a certain risk which employers would not be desirous of accepting. Everyone must sympathise with the case put by my hon. Frind and no one desires that men should be sent long journeys and then left in the lurch by the employers to whom they are sent. As regards that case, the Ministry keep in constant touch with those employers who sympathise with and desire to facilitate the work of the Employment Exchanges and on the other hand they are desirous of avoiding contact with employers who try
to use the Employment Exchanges for their own purposes. But the main point against the Amendment is that it would tend to lay average employers, and particularly the good employers, open to a certain financial risk which they would not be inclined to take. I admit that there are individual instances of the kind which the hon. Member has described but that is a matter which has to be met on its own merits according to the development and perfection of the Employment Exchanges. It seems to the Government that the way proposed in the Amendment would be the wrong way of dealing with the matter, because it would hinder rather than help what we all desire to see extended, namely the process of notification through Employment Exchanges.

Captain CAZALET: I have only one comment to make on the speech of the hon. Member who moved the Amendment. We were charged a few minutes ago by th hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot) and by hon. Members opposite with making insinuations against the unemployed. Here we find an hon. Member on the other side making exactly the same kind of insinuations against employers. Surely that is a case of political hypocrisy if ever there was one. We said that the cases to which we were referring were very few and the hon. Member opposite has had to admit that the cases of employers to which he refers are also few in number. As I understand it, if the employer applies through the Employment Exchange for a certain number of men and those men are selected to go to the locality of that employer, they draw their expenses from the Exchange before they set out on their journey.

Mr. LAWSON: That is where the employer asks the Department to advance money for their fares. Then he accepts responsibility for recoupment.

Captain CAZALET: I am much influenced by what the Parliamentary Secretary has said about the effect of this Amendment. The Amendment commands sympathy to a certain extent particularly in the case of an employer who asks for more men than he knows he can employ. On the other hand, it would have an effect upon employers asking for men through the medium of Employment Exchanges and that would be disastrous to these schemes and to any schemes for dealing with unemployment.

Mr. LINDLEY: I support this Amendment on several grounds. Some of us here have had experience of Exchanges sending men very long distances, and, although the employer may be responsible in the first instance for the advance, in the final instance it is the employé who is called upon to repay the money even if no work has been found for him. We have had instances of men being sent from northern counties and from Scotland to London. We referred these instances to the Ministry of Labour and asked that these men should not be pressed to refund the money which had been advanced to them. There was one instance in which men were sent from Carlisle to London. They spent seven days waiting for work which was not forthcoming and the Employment Exchange now insists upon those men refunding their fares. If it were true that in cases where an employer has asked that men should be sent to him payment of the fares was his responsibility, we would have no need to move this Amendment; but, it is precisely for the reason that the employer is not so responsible that we ask for the insertion of these words.
No hon. Member would care to do anything which would retard or restrict the employers in regard to the use of the Employment Exchanges—indeed I think it ought to be obligatory on every employer to use them—but neither should we do anything to retard or restrict the employés. If there is an obligation resting on the operative to accept any job offered to him, provided he is fit to do the work, there ought to be an obligation on the employer that he must not use the Employment Exchanges to provide surplus labour. That is the whole gist of the matter and I submit that there is nothing unreasonable in the Amendment. It provides that where expenses are incurred at the request of an employer, and the employer fails to provide employment, the expenses, together with wages at the recognised rate, shall be recoverable from the employer. The operative cannot recover from the Exchange officials or the Ministry. To whom then is he to look for the reimbursement of the wages lost during the time he has been endeavouring to get this work? I cannot see any reasonable, tangible objection to the Amendment and the very reasons advanced by the Parliamentary Secretary seem to me to be
reasons in support of and not against the Amendment. He has said that it is desired to do nothing injurious to the operative. We desire to protect the interests of the operative and to make him feel that, if he is sent to a place from the Exchange, work will be there for him when he arrives. Surely there is nothing unreasonable in that proposal. Regarding the comment of the hon. and gallant Member for Chippenham (Captain Cazalet) I would say that there are some employers unscrupulous enough to use the Employment Exchanges for their own purposes. I admit that they are few and far between, but we have to legislate, not for the ordinary fair-minded employer but against unscrupulous employers, and, because there are uncrupulous employers, there is need for the Amendment and I hope the Committee will support it.

Mr. MARKHAM: I hope the Committee will accept the Amendment because it tends to equalise the chances the unemployed man has compared with tile chances of the professional man in similar circumstances. In the case of positions such as those which hon. Gentlemen opposite would apply for when their turn in Parliament is finished, if applicants are put on the "short list" it is an absolute and understood obligation that their expenses will be paid, even if they are eventually unsuccessful candidates. All that this Amendment asks is that the same conditions that they enjoy shall be enjoyed by the unemployed man who is not so well off, and probably never will be, as they are themselves. Let us have justice all round. The Parliamentary Secretary has admitted the justice of the Amendment, but his defence is that it is not in a form of words which he can approve. Therefore, I ask him to give us now a line as to the way in which this Amendment can best be worded to meet the wishes of the Department.

Mr. LAWSON: The Clause definitely says that
the Minister may, whether employment has or has not been found for that person at that place, repay out of the Unemployment Fund to the Exchequer in such manner as the Treasury may direct,
and so on. As a matter of fact, I think that rather meets the main point as to the possibility of the man being left in the lurch, but there is another point that
I think ought to impress itself upon the Committee, and particularly upon my hon. Friends on this side, and that is the difficulty, in a Bill dealing with unemployment insurance, of compelling wages to be paid. There are certain real difficulties in the way of accepting this Amendment, which may raise an important question from the point of view of my hon. Friend the Member for Yardley (Mr. Gossling), but it can find no place in an Insurance Bill. There are other technical difficulties, and I ask the Committee to come to a decision on this point now. I regret that the Government certainly cannot accept the Amendment to meet the somewhat distressing cases that have been raised, but that have really nothing to do with the object of this particular Bill.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: Can the hon. Gentleman give us the records of any cases where employers have actually asked for men in excess of their requirements?

Mr. LAWSON: I could not say what records there are in the Department, but during my short term of office I have come across one such case, and in that case the employer voluntarily himself repaid the fares, to my own knowledge. I do not think, however, that there are numerous eases of the kind in question.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I wish to take exception to the speech made by the hon. Member for Chatham (Mr. Markham). It is not a question of justice or injustice or of whether people in one class have their expenses paid and in another class do not. The whole of the Debate for some time before this particular question was dealt with drew attention to the fact that there was a growing practice, by the Exchanges and otherwise, of helping the transference of workmen who were out of work. I say this at once, because the hon. Member for Chatham has charged us with unfairness, and I have been the person who, during the last four year and a half, have developed a system of transference by which we paid the expenses of the person who went away and helped his family with moving. We gave them more help than they have had at any time in the history of this country, and I am bound to make that quite clear, because it was a perfectly unwarranted charge on the part of the hon. Member.
I am sure hon. Members opposite will not mind my making plain the difficulty which the Exchanges have in the matter of placing men. I find myself in a strange position, and at the same time I am honestly anxious that the system by which men are enabled to get work by transference or by helping them with their journeys should be made as efficient as possible. There are two separate kinds of difficulty which hon. Members opposite have in mind. One is where many men were sent, exceeding the number of the jobs to be filled, men who were asked for by the employer, and the other case is where, when a man was actually sent, he was not given the job, quite irrespective of there being an excessive number. Perhaps I might have the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary here, because I am making an additional speech on his behalf and on behalf of the system, so far as making it a good system is concerned. As a rule the Department endeavours to make sure that not more men are sent than there are places to be filled, though they may make mistakes occasionally.
I have instances in my mind where, in order to provide employment for men in distressed areas, where jobs were few and far between, and where it was a boon to an enterprising man to get a fresh chance in life, we canvassed a number of employers in order to see whether, in those districts, they would give a certain number of places, very often on some job of construction. In those cases, of course, we were often given a comparatively short notice, and we were once asked whether we could supply 12 good men in 36 hours. We did it, and they gave satisfaction and did their work well, but, as hon. Members will realise, mistakes occasionally occur in matters of that kind, and that without any fault truly, either on the part of the employer or on the part of the Department. Broadly speaking, the policy is to try and fit the numbers to the actual numbers wanted, and it is as much likely to be the fault of the Department, being human, as that of the employer if this is not always properly worked out. The hon. Member for Yardley (Mr. Gossling) may have some instances in his mind—

Mr. GOSSLING: I have several.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: If he has several, it is a different matter, but from
the experience that I have had the instances where a conscious attempt has been made to get more men than were required are not often met. The question of the single man who is not kept stands on a different basis, and I will ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he would correct me here. Stress has been laid on the use and development of the Exchanges for the placing of men. I am not always certain whether that meets with approval on the benches opposite. I think the hon. Member for Yardley preferred national agreements.

Mr. GOSSLING: We have been urged on many occasions to get together, and I think that it is obviously the duty of the Exchange, when employers ask for men, to ask them if they observe national or local agreements.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: What I understood the hon. Member to say was that in certain cases with which he is familiar, the national or local agreement provides for jobs being given and places filled by consultation between the employers' side and the trade union side, and what he objected to was certain employers trying to get men from the Exchange instead and getting behind the national agreement.

Mr. GOSSLING: I have here the national agreement of the building industry, and it makes certain provisions, to illustrate which I will give a case in point. You might have a building job going on in an isolated district, where anybody knows perfectly well that the labour is not available. National agreements are made to meet a situation of that character. An employer gets a job which obviously means that he has to take men there, and the agreement provides that he has to pay their travelling expenses, lodging allowances, and fares back. In some cases you get an employer with a job of that description where the labour is not available, and he will apply to the nearest Employment Exchange for the men to be sent to the job, and so escape his obligation to pay travelling expenses or any lodging allowances; and if the men refuse when sent by the Exchange, their benefit is stopped. It is to prevent things of that character that the Amendment is drawn. In a par-
titular instance which I have in my mind, the employer specifically asked for 20 men to take their tools and to start on a job. They went, and 12 of them were employed, and the others were refused. All this Amendment asks is that when the employer asks specifically for a number of men, and he cannot employ them, he should reimburse the men for the expenses that they have had to incur.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am all for national agreements being observed, and I have always endeavoured to put nothing in the way of their being observed. The hon. Member on the other hand, may have some cases, and the one which he cited may be one of them; the facts may be as stated—I am not for a moment suggesting that they are not—but I found that when I went into matters in the Department, there was usually another side of the tale. I should say, however, that if a case like that ever occurred, it is not common, and I can imagine that, if the facts are as the hon. Member stated, there was some negligence on the part of the local Employment Exchange for not realising more accurately the number required.
I would like to make this point to the Committee and to emphasise it: what really is needed is, as the Parliamentary Secretary has said, not to discourage the actual placing of men through the Exchanges. It is not possible for an Exchange to be quite as sure about a man being suitable for a job as they can humanly speaking be sure that he gets the full standard local recognised rate. When I got people transferred in my time, we used always to make sure—certainly with miners' transference—that anyone transferred was paid at the full local recognised rates, and that, from the point of view of the man, was the greater part of the suitability of the job. From the point of view of the employer, it is not nearly so easy to make sure that the man is suitable. I am arguing this from the point of view of not prejudicing the placing of men by Exchanges. We have all, whichever party has been in power, been anxious to develop the placing of men by the Exchanges, and Exchanges have, also, quite naturally been anxious to see that the man who has been out for a long time got a chance.
These two are really competing motives in the mind of the Exchange manager, and of the people working for him, and very often one is driven to the conclusion that the first duty the Exchange is to offer the most suitable man, if they possibly can. If the Minister of Labour and the Parliamentary Secretary dissent from me, I hope that they will say so. That means that occasionally the Exchange make a mistake, and in fairness to the employer it should be said that he cannot quite say whether a man is suitable or not until he comes. That is not because of a failure on the part of the employer, but because the shape of the peg and the shape of the hole cannot possibly be known from a distance. That is at the bottom of 95 per cent. of these eases, and it may be amazingly difficult to draw any form of Clause which will distinguish between these and the odd case or two where, I do not deny an advantage has been taken. Possibly the Minister might devise a form to meet the difficulty, but there is the great drawback that if you try to meet the odd case, you may do more harm than good over 95 per cent. of the whole field.

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.

Mr. MARKHAM: On a point of Order—

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. MARKHAM: On a point of Order. The Chairman ruled—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: When the hon. Member wishes to raise a point of Order when the Question is being put, he must do so covered and remain seated.

Captain BALFOUR: With regard to the question of travelling expenses, when they become chargeable to the public fund, are they confined to just the railway fare or is there a definite amount for meals for the unemployed man?

Mr. LAWSON: No; they are just travelling expenses, and there is nothing in addition to that.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 10.—(Application of Unemploy- ment insurance Acts to employment abroad.)

Captain A. HUDSON: I beg to move, in page 9, line 29, at the end to add the words:
Provided that such regulations shall not come into force until after the passage of a resolution to that effect by both Houses of Parliament.
All of us on this side thoroughly agree with this Clause, and the only reason I am moving this Amendment is to make quite certain that the machinery is as perfect as we can make it. The difference between the procedure as it would be if this Amendment were not accepted and as it would be under my proposal, is this: Under Section 35 of the Act of 1920, it is provided that regulations must be laid before Parliament and may be annulled by an address by either House, but they actually come into force at the date on which they are made. The Amendment proposes that they shall not come into force until both Houses of Parliament have passed a resolution to that effect. We are rather afraid that difficulties may arise in connection with the machinery of this new arrangement for allowing people who are employed in foreign countries to come under the Unemployment Insurance Act and that is why we desire the regulations to come before the House. If the regulations are working smoothly and are generally agreed to, the Minister will not have any difficulty in getting them through both Houses of Parliament; but this Amendment would allow us to see the new provisions which are to be made. It is a little difficult to be certain of the advantages to be gained under the Clause. Some people are not sure that men will not have to pay contributions and get very little in return. Until the Clause has been in operation for some time it is extremely difficult to see what will happen. There is objection in the country to Departments having power to make regulations, and therefore it will be all to the good if they have to come before Parliament. The Amendment is only a very small addition to bring about what I think is called affirmative resolution procedure as against negative resolution procedure.

Miss BONDFIELD: This Clause is inserted in the Bill in response to a constant agitation for some such pro-
vision on the part of a group of very highly skilled and valuable men. The question arose in connection with bridge building, in the first instance, if I remember rightly. Suppose that a firm with headquarters in this country—and we are not contemplating firms which have not their headquarters here—send out a body of men, who may be away for two or three years, to build a bridge across the Zambesi, or somewhere else. When the work is done, they return home only to find that, although they have been amongst the earliest insured persons, having come under the provisions of the Act of 1911, they have forfeited all their rights on account of having been uninsured for two years. There are not a great number of these cases, and they can be quite clearly safeguarded. The Clause is so drafted that the Minister will have to take account of every application and deal with specific cases, making such regulations as will ensure continuity of registration, and so on. Though this will affect only a very small number of persons, those persons have had a real grievance in coming back to the country after finishing their job abroad, as iron and steel workers, engineers, etc., only to find that after all the contributions they have made to the Fund they are excluded from benefits by reason of the fact that they had taken this work abroad. That is the sole purpose of the Clause, and I think the safeguards in the principal Act with regard to laying the regulations before Parliament are sufficient.

Mr. MARKHAM: Do those remarks apply to the dock yards?

Earl WINTERTON: I am sure the intentions of the right hon. Lady are admirable, and I have no doubt that the intentions of the distinguished group of people of whom she spoke are equally admirable, but the question is whether the Clause as drafted will carry out those intentions or whether there are not certain dangers to be feared. I am sure the right hon. Lady had no desire to withhold any information from the Committee, but she had not given us very much information about the Clause. After searching carefully through both the Clause and the explanatory memorandum, I cannot find that there is any time limit upon the operations of the
Clause. These people might be employed abroad for a matter of five or ten years—that sometimes happens. I think it is reasonable that highly skilled workers going abroad should remain in insurance, but I do not think it is reasonable that a man living for ten years outside the country and engaged in work abroad should be included in this insurance scheme; at least I think it is doubtful whether he should, and I should like to hear the views of the Minister on that point.
Further, I would like to know what machinery the right hon. Lady will provide to ensure that benefit is paid to these people if they get out of employment while they are abroad. The explanatory memorandum says the Clause proposes to permit the payment of contributions in certain cases. I presume that what she means is that it permits the payment of contributions and also the payment of benefits. I do not say the case would be common, but what would happen if a British firm which took a contract abroad were to fail and the workpeople were thrown out of employment in the country to which they have gone? What is to be their position? They have paid their contributions and they are under the Act.

Miss BONDFIELD: Obviously, the principal Act would govern that point. No benefit is paid outside the United Kingdom.

Earl WINTERTON: That makes the position more extraordinary, and I wish to repeat my question. We all know of the experiences which some reputable firms have had with contracts in countries abroad. The firm take a contract, but finds the conditions wholly different from what they had expected them to be, and they are not able to fulfil the contract. I do not say they fail dishonourably to fulfil it, but they cannot complete it, and it is taken over by somebody else. Those people find themselves out of employment, and yet the right hon. Lady says that they will not be entitled to benefit. Those men are stranded in Buenos Aires, Rio or some part of our Dominions. They may have been there in some cases nine or 10 years and yet we are told by the Minister of Labour that they cannot draw any benefit until they return to this country. The result is that in some cases they have to obtain money from
the British Consuls. What benefit can it be to these people to pay contributions if they are not to receive any benefit. That is a point on which we shall require to be fully satisfied. There are one or two other points which require some further explanation. Clause 10 provides that:
Regulations made under Section thirty-five of the principal Act may provide that, subject to any prescribed conditions, where persons in the employment of a person resident or having his principal place of business in the United Kingdom are engaged outside the United Kingdom for the purpose of the execution of some particular work.
That would apply to our Colonies. I know that frequently the India Office engages men in this country under short-term contracts to do work in India, and some of them would normally come under the Unemployment. Insurance Acts of this country. In such cases, does the right hon. Lady insist on those people being insured and have they to continue paying their insurance?

Mr. KNIGHT: You have not read the Clause!

Earl WINTERTON: Yes, I have read the Clause.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: May I point out to the Noble Lord that we are not discussing the Clause. We are discussing the Amendment on the Paper.

Earl WINTERTON: I thought that the latitude which you, Mr. Dunnico, usually allow would have permitted me to ask those questions, but I will not pursue my point any further. I contend that the words:
where persons in the employment of a person resident or having his principal place of business in the United Kingdom are engaged outside the United Kingdom,
might be held to apply to Government Departments. This is an important point which strengthens my support of the Amendment, and that is why I think the Regulations should be laid on the Table of both Houses of Parliament. I also think that it is very necessary that we should know whether or not this Clause is in conflict with the immigration laws of various countries. I am exceedingly doubtful, from what I know of this subject, whether it would not be held that if a business man engages workmen in this country and takes them over to
Canada it would not be a breach of the law of Canadian immigration. I know a case where a distinguished Canadian banker was recruiting a staff in this country to work in his branches in Canada, and the Dominion's Minister of Immigration stated that what this gentleman is doing is illegal.
It is important that we should have some reply on these points. I do not know whether this provision would apply to firms who have taken contracts in the United States. I know that the United States law on this question is much more stringent than the Dominion immigration law. It has already been pointed out that we are not opposed to this Clause, in fact we have always encouraged the idea of British contracts abroad being carried out by British labour with British capital, and that is why we want to know that we are safe in this respect by passing this Clause. I would like to know whether the Dominion Parliament has been consulted on this matter and whether the Canadian representative has been asked whether what is proposed in this Clause is contrary to the immigration laws of Canada. I think we ought to have some further explanation on the question of the payment of contributions, apparently without any provision at all for those persons receiving benefit.

Miss BONDFIELD: I have been asked what happens in the case of insured persons being called upon to go to some other part of the world in which they are going to fulfil a contract, and afterwards come home to this country. The answer is that they are permitted to make an arrangement at headquarters by which their contributions will be continued so that when they come back they will be entitled to benefit. The payment of benefit comes under the regulations which apply in this country.

Earl WINTERTON: I do not think that I have made my point quite clear. The men I refer to are sent abroad under certain contracts which have been entered into, and they are engaged by the Secretary of State or the High Commissioner.

Miss BONDFIELD: If the Secretary of State or the High Commissioner is the actual employer of these men, then they would pay the proportion which is usually paid as an employer's contribution. No question arises as to whether this would be contrary to the immigration laws.

Lord EUSTAGE PERCY: May I give as an illustration the case of a teacher who is receiving a pension. If that teacher goes abroad, arrangements are made whereby he retains his right under the scheme while he is abroad, but his rights under the scheme are rights which do not accrue, ex hypothesi, before he comes home. They are rights to a pension on retirement, and all that is needed is to keep those rights alive by continuing the payment of contributions. The unemployment scheme is a very different thing indeed. It is not a scheme under which you contribute in order to gain eventual benefit on your retirement from work at the age of 60 or 65, but a scheme under which you pay contributions in order that you may get benefits whenever you are unemployed within, let us say, two years after you have paid contributions. These people are going to be told, "You must continue to pay your contributions during the three, five or 10 years that you are abroad, but during that period no rights shall accrue, so that you are under a definite disadvantage as compared with your comrade who has stayed at home."
If this Clause has any meaning at all, it is that a man who goes abroad shall be able to retain the same rights as he would have had if he had stayed at home. The whole claim has been that a man should not suffer because he goes abroad, but under this Clause the man is to suffer when he goes abroad, because, although when he comes home he may have retained his position under the Insurance Act while he is abroad, yet, if he is thrown out of work while he is abroad, he gets none of those benefits which his comrade at home would get under the same contractual relationship. This might not be very serious if under this Clause we were only talking of contracts—of a contractor in England sending his men out to perform a contract on the Zambesi, or wherever it may be; but I think the right hon. Lady will agree that this Clause covers the case of a firm with a head office in the United Kingdom and branch offices in the Dominions, who have a regular system of exchange between the staffs of those offices. In such a case a man may fall out of work when he is employed in one of the Dominion offices just as much as he may when he is employed at home, and yet he is to receive no benefit when he is out of work.
There are two serious points in this matter which have led my hon. Friend to move this Amendment. The first is that the Minister, or the new despotism, as we call it now, is given the widest possible power of making regulations laying down the conditions under which these men who go abroad are to be allowed to remain in insurance. The second is even more serious. It is that this Clause leaves the Minister no power to make regulations covering the one thing which these men want most, namely, that they shall have the same claim to benefit as the man who remains at home, I think there is no power under this Clause to do that; at any rate, that is my assumption—that the Minister has no power to give to the insured person outside this country any right to benefit, no matter what his unemployment may be while he is out of it. That cannot be satisfactory. I tremble to make the suggestion, but I really would suggest to the right hon. Lady that this is another Clause which she might well withdraw.

Miss BONDFIELD: I should like, if I may, to clear up this point, which is quite a simple one about which obviously there is a misunderstanding. This provision was not put in on the initiative of my Department at all; it is an attempt to meet the views of deputations received, and is intended simply and solely to meet a case which has been put forward by insured persons and certain groups of employers. They say to the Ministry, "We go out under a contract which we think will be over in two years, but which may run on for two-and-a-half or three years. We have a contract to take our men out and bring them back again, and we want to be quite sure that, when they come back, they shall be no worse off so far as the insurance position is concerned than they were when they decided to go out." The question has never been raised of paying benefit outside this country, and that is not the point. The point is as to whether the Ministry can make any arrangements, if the firms are prepared to pay the contributions, by which this can be done. I looked at the question to see what my powers were, and I found that I had no power even to make such an arrangement as these people want made. [Interruption.] I would specify particularly engineers and iron and steel workers. The Iron and Steel Trades Confederation
was the body which brought it to my notice. They had discussed the matter with certain engineering firms who had large contracts abroad. The position is quite simple, and the Clause is a very limited one, to take such limited power as is asked for to make arrangements with firms for the continuation of contributions, so that men who go out under contract and are brought back under contract shall not be worse off when they return to this country.

9.0 p.m.

Lord E. PERCY: The right hon. Lady has said that this has only been asked for in respect of firms who are under contract to bring their men back but that does not appear in this Clause at all. Under this Clause as it stands the Minister would have power to make regulations, as I understand it, to oblige a man, who was sent out by his employer to a branch office with no contract, to continue to pay insurance contributions.

Miss BONDFIELD: Surely, I made it quite clear that there is no obligation on the man. Unless a man asks to be allowed to continue to pay his contributions, he is not forced to do so at all.

Lord E. PERCY: That is the right hon. Lady's intention, but it is not the Clause. The Clause empowers her to make regulations which
may provide that subject to any prescribed conditions, where persons are in employment. … they shall. … be deemed for the purposes. …

Miss BONDFIELD: They shall be deemed.

Lord E. PERCY: But subject to any conditions. If the right hon. Lady wishes to confine it to workmen whose employers are under contract to bring them home, I hope she will accept an Amendment on Report to the effect that these regulations shall only apply in the case of men whose employers are under contract to bring them home.

Mr. MARKHAM: I should very much like to know how the Minister regards the position of dockyard workers who may be sent abroad on Government service for long periods to Bermuda, Gibraltar, or other places. So far the right hon. Lady has said that this only applies to men
sent out by a firm under contract. I should also like to know whether they have to pay their contributions during the whole time that they are away, as I understand is the case with men under contract with private firms, and whether they become entitled to benefit the moment they commence their voyage home, or when they first set foot in England and apply to an Employment Exchange.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I should like just to make it clear to the Committee that I have allowed a discussion to take place on the Clause together with this Amendment, and the Committee will understand that this is the only discussion that can take place on the Clause.

Miss BONDFIELD: I would point out that the men described by my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Markham) are established employés, and that, therefore, in their case the question would not arise.

Mr. GRACE: I should like to point out that the right hon. Lady has not put the case of the Amendment which is before the Committee. The whole point of the Amendment is that we are anxious that Measures which are passed by the House of Commons should be made effective by the House, and not by Government Departments, and the important question of the regulations and conditions which can be attached to this Clause is one which, we consider, the House should from time to time have an opportunity of seeing and approving. This is a question of men going abroad for years, whose rights, I understand, are to be safeguarded, but what is to happen to them in the meantime? What is to happen to them under these regulations, which we have not seen and which at the moment we have no idea of? Does the right hon. Lady mean that there are to be actual weekly payments made by these men through their employers during the time that they are abroad? Suppose that a man is abroad for five or 10 years. Are we to understand that weekly sums can be deducted from the wages paid to them abroad, and that during that time they are to receive none of the benefits which, had they been in this country, they would have been receiving? That is a very important point to which we are
entitled to ask for an answer. I will also ask the right hon. Lady to deal with one point that has been raised by the Amendment—whether she does not consider that it is a reasonable thing that, on a matter of great importance like this, the House should have a right to consider and review the regulations which are passed by her Department, and which should be laid on the Table of the House and criticised by Members.

Mr. HARRIS: I have no objection to the Amendment as such. On the contrary, I have moved similar Amendments myself. I am all for keeping control, as far as possible, of any regulations made by the Minister. I do not suppose the right hon. Lady has any serious objection to that. I think it is a good thing that Parliament should keep control of regulations, but when it comes to this Clause, I am surprised at the attitude of the two Noble Lords. I am not quite clear whether they think the Clause is too weak or too strong, whether it goes too far or not far enough. Hon. Members above the Gangway always claim to have a monopoly of the Empire. They are the great Imperial party. In the words of Rudyard Kipling,
What do they know of England who only England know?

Earl WINTERTON: The hon. Member is, no doubt, aware that this Clause not only applies to the Empire but also to those foreign countries for which he and his party have always had such a particular regard.

Mr. HARRIS: We want our manufacturers to get contracts not only in the Empire but in foreign countries as well. That means more employment for British workmen and more steel manufactured in English foundries. Apparently the new doctrine of the Noble Lord is that we should take no contracts except in this country or in. the Empire and should refuse all contracts for foreign countries. That is a pernicious doctrine to which Members below the Gangway give no countenance. As far as I can see, this is an honest attempt to make good a very serious defect in previous insurance Acts. It is undoubtedly a fact that there is a danger that, if men accept employment abroad, their position in the insurance scheme will be prejudiced. That is a thing which we want to
remedy. [Interruption.] Hon. Members had five years to do it, but they were asleep until someone woke them up. Here is an honest attempt to face a real problem. It is common knowledge that many of our big engineering firms, such as Pearsons, for instance, have opportunities of getting contracts, especially for the manufacture of bridges, in Africa and South America, but, naturally, the men hesitate to work on such contracts if, when they get back, they find themselves out of work and uncovered by the Unemployment Insurance Act. It is to regulate that difficulty that this Clause is introduced, and I am entirely in favour of it. Whether it is advisable to have regulations made by the Minister laid before the House is another question. I am always in favour of that, and I suggest that, if the right hon. Lady cannot accept the Amendment, she might give an undertaking to consider it on Report. It is a thoroughly sound idea.

Miss BONDFIELD: The Regulations will be laid for 21 days under the provisions of the principal Act. I cannot see why there should be any variation from the principle of those Regulations.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I am moved to address the Committee partly on account of the observations of the hon. Member who has just spoken. He, like his party, is willing to wound but absolutely afraid to strike. The Noble Lords have made very useful and pertinent criticism. It is very largely on account of the words used by the right hon. Lady that the Committee finds itself in an extraordinary situation of doubt and difficulty. She says, first of all, that it applies to persons who are now insured. Presumably it does not apply, therefore, to any new form of insured persons, or to people who may be insured after the passing of the Act but who are not insured before. We ought to have some explanation of those words. There is another point on which explanation is certainly required. What is the meaning of the words "under contract"? I understand that is not a term that is applied to persons who go on board a ship. We want to know whether it refers only to those working in this country or whether it refers to those who have embarked on ships. This is only to be applied to men who are willing to be insured. That raises several very large questions. Is
there to be a weekly deduction from their wages, or are they going to have a lump sum deducted when the period of their contract expires, in other words, presumably, when they come home? If that is the case, it is a very unfair arrangement. If they have been abroad a long time, a large deduction will be made which will come to them as a considerable shock.
There is a considerable difficulty which has come under my own personal observation. There is a question of clerks attached to foreign missions. Sometimes these missions go to places which are -under the control of our own troops, for instance, the occupied territory in Germany. Nearly all military and naval laws deal with these questions. But there are missions which go to other of our territories. I had an interesting time in Germany on the Inter-Allied Commission of Control, but there were no regulations to deal with it. There were a great many clerks enlisted in this country on English so-called contracts, and the question of their deductions has not been satisfactorily settled to this day. In fact, I am now getting letters from people who were clerks to that Commission eight or 10 years ago wondering what is the actual amount that they should have received from the Government. This does not concern private contractors at all. I warn the right hon. Lady that, in introducing this Clause without making special provision for this case, she is laying up a very difficult heritage for herself. Let me give one instance. Certain warrants had been made for those men, and they were so involved on account of the difficult legal position, that they had to be decided by the King himself. The right hon. Lady can only get out of the difficulty by having the King's signature, and I suggest that she can put the matter right by the very simple means indicated in regard to this Clause.

Captain BOURNE: I want to raise a point as to the meaning of the words:
a person resident or having his principal place of business in the United Kingdom,
because I gather from the Minister's speech that this Clause has been framed to meet the representations made to her principally by the engineering trade. I would like to suggest that there are
other trades in which there is a principal company in the United Kingdom and subsidiary companies abroad in connection with which skilled people in insurable occupations go out from this country and work for those subsidiary companies, which are under the legislation of the country where the work is done. I am not at all clear whether a recommendation in this Clause will cover the case of these people, where the head company is in England, and the company which holds the majority of the shares is for technical reasons registered abroad. These people would be in insurable occupations if they were employed in England or if they were employed in a country by a firm with headquarters in England. Does this meet the case? If not, they have a very definite grievance.

Captain CAZALET: The Minister told us that she had no power whatever; in fact, she said she had looked into the matter and found that she had even less power than she thought she had. I see in line 27 of this Clause, the words:
subject to any prescribed modifications or exceptions.
I have read the Clause several times in order to try to understand the full import of that sentence. It seems to me that that sentence alone gives the right hon. Lady a very wide area of discretion, and would, I think, entitle her to make regulations or take decisions upon many of the points raised by hon. Members on these benches. As I understand it, the manner in which the collection of these insurance contributions will be made is that the firm in England, or the representative of the firm located in England, will contribute each week full contributions, both on behalf of employer and on behalf of the employé, to the insurance Fund during the whole period the individual is employed on a contract in some foreign part.
I think I am right in that assumption. It appears that under this scheme the fund is assured of collecting all the contributions. The fund cannot possibly lose; it must gain very considerably by any contract that is made abroad, and men engaged in that contract continue to be insured under this Clause. But during the whole of that time no benefit whatever can be paid to them. They cannot benefit in any way. [An HON.
MEMBER "They do not need it!"] On the other hand, they have to continue to pay full contributions during the full period. An hon. Member below the Gangway suggested that they might be in employment three, four, or even five years. My point is, that as they cannot possibly benefit under the Act in any way whatever, is there not some means by which they shall be able to continue to be insured, and that immediately they come back to this country they shall continue to be in the same position in regard to the Insurance Fund and enjoy the same benefits as when they left the country? That, I understand, is the object of the Clause. Surely, that would he obtained if, instead of having to pay under this Clause the maximum contribution with the minimum benefits, they paid the minimum contribution, entitling them to the full benefits when they returned home. That is a fairer way of treating these individuals who can get no benefit out of the scheme when abroad, although they have to pay the maximum contributions.

Mr. DIXEY: I should like to ask the Minister a question on this subject. As I understood her, she had in mind certain groups of the engineering trade; that there was an absolute demand for a provision of this nature. From what I can gather there are other trades who might well come within the scope of this Clause. I was not clear from what she said whether she wanted to treat it as a regulation to be applied to the trades who had already applied, or whether she wanted to treat it as a regulation which she could apply to any trade.

Miss BONDFIELD: There are a few questions which hon. Gentlemen wish me to answer. First of all, the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) said he wanted to be assured about subsidiary companies. It is perfectly clear that the Clause is so worded that there will be no question of making any agreement or any regulation connected with any trade unless the person is resident or has headquarters in this country. I should not consider making any regulations concerning any subsidiary company abroad. With regard to the extent of the Clause, it will be only those persons who think it will be to their advantage to come into the scheme who will make application, and
where persons consider under these conditions that it is to their advantage I shall certainly consider the matter.

Amendment negatived.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 11.—(Crediting of contributions in respect of persons continuing education.)

Lord E. PERCY: I beg to move, in page 9, line 35, to leave out the words "for the purpose of payment of grant," and to insert instead thereof the words "as efficient."
The effect of the Amendment will be that persons who attend a course of instruction can be credited with contributions if they attend a school recognised by the Board of Education as efficient, whether or not the Board of Education recognise it for the purpose of the payment of grant. When I first read this Clause as it stands, I thought for one moment there was some intention behind it to confine its benefit to schools which were grant-aided by the Board of Education, with, perhaps, a view to giving those schools a definite advantage. But I do not believe that that is the case. I think that we all wish to deal in this matter with the young person as a person quite irrespective of the kind of education that he is going through. All we are anxious to do is to encourage that young person to stay at any efficient school as long as possible. I want to prevent him from prematurely going into employment. The President of the Board of Education, in the course of a Debate the other day, event went as far—I could not have gone quite as far myself—as to say it was better for a child to be in the most inefficient school than in the best employment.
The effect of the Clause as it stands I can explain better by giving an actual instance. Take Dulwich College, in South London. Dulwich was in receipt of a grant from the Board of Education for some years. It has now ceased to receive grants, but it still admits, and will, I hope, always continue to admit, a number of free place scholars from the London elementary schools. Under this Clause, a boy who went from an elementary school to Dulwich and stayed there until the age of 16 and then entered some insurable employment, would receive no credit for
his education in Dulwich College, while a similar boy of the same age who went to a grant-aided secondary school would receive credit for the time he spent at that school. I think the whole Committee will concur that, as we are dealing with the child and trying to keep him on at any efficient school anywhere as long as possible, the benefit credit shall be extended to the child, no matter at what school he attends, as long as the Board of Education recognises it as efficient. The only difficulty I can see is that it might be said that the mere machinery of this proposal offered a difficulty, as in the case of the grant-aided school the local education authority can certify that the child had actually been at the school, whereas, if it is an independent school, though inspected and declared efficient by the Board of Education, the local education authority might know nothing about it. I think the Committee will agree that a certificate from the headmaster, seeing that it is a school recognised as efficient by the Board of Education, is a quite sufficient guarantee that the young person had actually been at the school for a certain period and gone through a certain course of instruction.

Miss BONDFIELD: I have been considering this Amendment in the light of the report of the National Advisory Council. I say at once, without any waste of time, that, as far as I can see, there is nothing in it which conflicts with the recommendations of the Council, and in so far as the Amendment does in any way widen the area of educational opportunities, I am prepared to accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made:

In page 9, line 40, leave out the word "to," and insert instead thereof the word "for."—[Miss Bondfield.]

Lord E. PERCY: I beg to move, in page 9, line 41, to leave out the word "eighteen," and to insert instead thereof the word "nineteen."
The present position under the Clause is that a person is credited with contributions up to the age of 16, but not beyond, and that none of the contributions with which he is credited can be taken into account in any claim for benefit which he makes after the age of 18. My pro-
posal is that contributions shall be credited to him up to the age of 18, and that at any rate he should receive the benefit of those contributions in respect of any claim he may make up to the age of 19. I agree that the extra year is not very much, but you must hold out some carrot to a donkey, so to speak, and it is necessary that the right to receive some benefit for contributions credited shall continue beyond the time to which those contributions would be credited.
The main point is the question whether you should in an Act of Parliament lay down the assumption that the age to which the future insured worker may reasonably expect to be educated is not beyond 16. It may be true that the Amendment is one more of principle than of practice, but what you are saying here is this: The Bill foreshadows and presupposes that a child shall be compelled to remain at school till 15 years of age, and if he remains one year longer, contributions can be credited, but if he presumes to stay on at a secondary school up to the age of 18 and then goes into insurable employment, those last two years of education shall not be years in which he can be credited with any contributions. I do not think that is desirable. I know there is a kind of idea that if a boy stays on at a secondary school until 18, he is destined for some black-coated employment which shall not be insurable, and that there is no reason for anybody who is going to be a mere insurable worker, to stay on at a secondary school until 18.
It is immensely important that we should lay it down quite clearly that for any boy whose ability justifies it, no matter to what employment he is going afterwards, a secondary school education up to the age of 18 is worth while, and may be immensely worth while in insurable employment in enabling him to rise to a high standard. I confess that, to a certain extent, this is not an Amendment of substance, because it does not make any Amendment of the limitation in the Bill as to the total number of contributions which can be credited to any person remaining at school. I should like to alter that, but I have hesitated to put clown any Amendment because it would affect, to a certain extent, the financial position of the fund, and I do not feel that any Amendment which would affect
that position, considering the serious jeopardy in which the fund is under the Bill as it is should be moved by anyone but the Government.
Of course the Minister may have a complete answer to the technical side of my Amendment if she replies by saying that such a boy will have all the contributions credited to him that can be credited before he reaches the age of 16, so what is the good of extending it to the age of 18? I wish she would herself move an Amendment enabling a boy who does stay at school until he is 18 years of age to be credited with more contributions. A certain number of contributions should be credited for every year that a boy stays at school. I do not want to go into an Act of Parliament that we assume that the future insurable worker has no use for a secondary education between the ages of 16 and 18. I know that hon. Members opposite object to my views about the compulsory school-leaving age, but I think they will agree that I have always been very keen on providing opportunities for every boy who desires to do so to stay on at a secondary school until the age of 18, and get a full secondary education. I do not want anything put into an Act of Parliament which would seem to imply that that is an unnecessary and irrelevant idea for a boy who is to go into an insurable occupation.

Miss BONDFIELD: I am sure that the Committee is in sympathy with the sentiments expressed by the Noble Lord, but I think he has overlooked the technical position in more ways than one. Under the present provision, a young person under 18 years of age is subject to the full statutory conditions of 30 contributions; over 18 a person comes under the transitional conditions. That is to say, that under 18 these young persons must have shown that they have had 30 weeks' work. These provisos, which have been worked out by the National Advisory Councils, are to relax the conditions on behalf of those young persons under 18. Persons over 18 come under the transitional regulations, and are in a different category. In these circumstances, I cannot see that the argument put forward by Noble Lord has very much substance in it. There is another point that I am very anxious to maintain, and that is that the national advisory councils have given particular care and attention to these pro-
visions, they have thought them out well and have made valuable suggestions, and I am very desirous of maintaining in this Clause the provisions laid down by the National Advisory Councils. If hon. Members look at the Order Paper they will find that hon. and right hon. Members opposite cancel each other out, because the Amendment which follows the one now moved by the Noble Lord desires to reduce the credit in regard to age, just as this Amendment desires to increase it. In view of that fact it seems to me that it would be wise on my part to maintain the position laid down in the Clause, and resist the Amendment.

Mr. HARRIS: I am sorry that the Minister of Labour is suspicious of the Noble Lord. I agree that hon. Members behind him, in their subsequent Amendment are proposing something reactionary, but there is no reason why when the Noble Lord comes forward with an excellent suggestion, representing the views of the Committee, that the right hon. Lady should not accept in principle what he advocates. There could be nothing more fatal than that the idea should get abroad that a boy should necessarily leave school at the age of 15 or 16. The future of our industrial cadets largely depends upon our encouraging them to stay, I will not say at school but at some place of education up to the age of 17, 18 and even later. The reason why such immense progress is made in the United States of America and Germany is because engineers, mechanics and craftsmen go on with their education until they are 17, 18 and 19 years of age. The Noble Lord made great play of the word "secondary" education. I am sorry that he laid such emphasis on secondary education, because the argument applies equally to technical schools and polytechnics.

Lord E. PERCY: I should have liked to have said that, but there is in this Bill what seems to me an extraordinary provision that you shall not be credited with any contributions if you are at the same time paying contributions yourselves. If you are attending a technical college, part-time day classes, you will be paying contributions and, therefore, the question of credit does not arise.

Mr. HARRIS: I was not referring to that. The Noble Lord knows that there
are mechanics, engineers and others who go on for the full-time course by the aid of scholarships from county councils, and even from the Board of Education. They go to technical colleges, the Royal College of Arts, etc., and obtain training as designers and as engineers. It is common knowledge that there is a very large amount of unemployment amongst skilled engineers. There may be similar unemployment at a future time of industrial depression, when engineers will be very glad to draw benefit under the Unemployment Insurance scheme owing to the fact that their training centre was a technical college or a polytechnic. It is difficult to alter a Bill where financial difficulties have always to he faced, but I am sorry that the Minister of Labour was not a little more sympathetic to the idea expressed in the Noble Lord's Amendment. The Amendment is excellent and deserves every support and sympathy.

Viscountess ASTOR: I would ask the right hon. Lady to accept the Amendment. If she will cast her mind back she will remember that on the 1924 Act when the proposal was made to lower the age of insurance to 15 a tremendous fight was carried on by the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove), who said that if the insurable age was lowered it would be prejudicial to the raising of the school age. That is what we have had to fight for. Now, the right hon. Lady is bringing in a Bill which as far as juveniles are concerned is really opposed to the principle of raising the school age, and is going to make it more difficult for the further raising of the school age. Although hon. Members apposite may not agree with me on these matters, I think that everyone who is interested in education are hoping that the school-leaving age will be raised eventually to 16. That is what we have to fight for. The Amendment favours the principle which the Government and hon. Members opposite have been talking about for the last four and a half years.
I cannot see why hon. Members opposite should sit silent and allow this Amendment to fail, and say nothing about it. It shows that the Government are far more interested in the funds of the Insurance Bill than they are in the education of the juveniles. If the Government
do not accept the Amendment, it will be very difficult to get children to go in for secondary education. It is hard enough already, and the right hon. Lady is making it harder. By making 15 the age at which children can come into insurance, she is making it more difficult for us to raise the school age. If she does not accept this Amendment, she will make it almost impossible for those of us who are interested in secondary education to get the children to stay on at school. I hope that she will accept the Amendment and prove her goodwill to some of us who have fought even against our party and against her party for the raising of the school age. It is not only against one party that we have had to fight for the raising of the school age.
The late Minister of Education told us, when there was a majority for raising the school age to 15, that it was not popular. We all knew it was not popular, but some of us fight for things that are not popular with our own party; and some of us would never sit still and let things for which we fought go by; we should not sit still like mice. I am deeply disappointed with the right hon. Lady. The whole policy of this Bill in regard to juvenile unemployment is not in the interests of the children themselves but in the interests of the fund. I hope the right hon. Lady will think well before she finally turns down the Amendment. She must not take too much heed of the extremists on our side or her own side; they do not really represent the opinion of the country.

Mr. O. STANLEY: I congratulate the hon. Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountes Astor) for having disturbed the rather unnatural placidity with which the Debate so far has been conducted. I had hoped that the right hon. Lady would have answered this perfectly serious Amendment in a rather less perfunctory manner. It raises a large question of educational principle. Some of us are rather concerned with the fact that a parent is inclined to look on secondary education, at whatever age, as merely an avenue to a particular form of career unconnected with industry, and anything of this kind, which seems to mark out the child who, takes on a secondary career from a child that goes into the ordinary industrial occupation, seems to me to have rather an evil effect. The right hon.
Lady did not give any satisfactory reason for refusing to accept what I believe the Committee is agreed upon in principle. She sheltered herself behind the Report of a Committee. She said that the Juvenile Advisory Committee have considered it, and it was not in their Report. I should like to remind her that another Committee sat not a very long time ago, the Morris Committee, which made perfectly lucid recommendations about certain other things, and she has not taken such a firm stand behind the Report of that Committee. I hope she will look at the Amendment in a rather broader spirit, and recognise that it has a real point of educational substance behind it. The President of the Board of Education, if he were listening to the Debate, would no doubt confirm this, and might consider whether it is not possible, without sheltering behind technicalities, to do something to meet the obvious wishes of Members of the Committee in all parts of the House.

Captain CROOKSHANK: I do not think we should allow the Amendment to go seeing that we have both Ministers responsible for education on the Front Bench and not one of them has attempted to answer the Noble Lord, or listened to a single word that has been said. Perhaps the President of the Board of Education will listen now and favour the Committee with his views on the matter. The Member for the Sutton Division (Viscountess Astor) has told us that she has fought for many unpopular causes. We know that, but the cause of education is not one which is particularly unpopular, taking the Committee as a whole: and as far as I understand the Amendment it has nothing to do with the dim future and the further raising of the school age to 16, but applies to circumstances here and now, where there are boys and girls voluntarily undergoing second education without any compulsion on the part of the State. It is their position we are anxious to safeguard, and I should have thought that it is the position of such boys and girls, who are able to take advantage of the facilities which exist, whose position the President of the Board of Education ought to safeguard. He should come forward and say a word on their behalf, and try and persuade the Minister of Labour to see that she is going a little beyond her province
when she says that it is not exactly what the National Advisory Committee recommended. I remember on a previous occasion when the Blanesburgh Committee was being quoted that the Secretary for War used to utter diatribes against the constant quoting of the Blanesburgh Committee. We may say that it is not the National Advisory Committee which is to control our activities, but Parliament itself. I ask the right hon. Lady to be a little more forthcoming and give in to the reasonable appeal which has been made by hon. Members.

Miss BONDFIELD: The whole purpose of this particular provision is to enable youths up to the age of 18 to qualify for benefit by assisting them with credit stamps to secure the necessary maximum contributions. That carries him right up to the age of 18. The age from 15 to 18 is dealt with in this Clause. The Amendment would overlap that period and carry them into the adult age, which is dealt with by other provisions. That seems to me to be the proper course. It is not that I refuse to increase educational facilities, but it seems to me the commonsense view when dealing with the age group from 15 to 18.

Lord E. PERCY: I want to understand what the right hon. Lady's point is. It seems to be this. The object of these credited contributions is to make sure that the young person between the age of 16 and 18 can claim benefit?

Miss BONDFIELD: Can qualify for benefit.

Lord E. PERCY: It is not necessary after the age of 18, because a person after that age can qualify for benefit, whether he has made contributions or not. Is that the case?

Miss BONDFIELD: It is not the case.

Lord E. PERCY: Then I fail to understand the position. The right hon. Lady says that after 18 years of age the person comes under the transitional provisions, and no matter how many contributions they have made they can receive benefit out of the coffers of the State.

Mr. COVE: That knocks your case out.

Lord E. PERCY: I want to know. I want to find out whether it is the right hon. Lady's case.

Miss BONDFIELD: During that period a young person is qualified and credited with the stamps. When they get to 18 they come under the transitional provisions.

Lord E. PERCY: I quite understand why it is of so supreme importance that you should have this credit system between the ages of 15 and 16. They are not credited with any contributions after 18. The right hon. Lady's case is it is of supreme importance that contributions should be credited between 16 and 18 in order that young persons between those ages shall be able to qualify although they remain at school. But she says that at the age of 18 conditions for qualification are far more stringent, and, therefore they do not need to be credited with any contributions. Is not that the case? Mark what, an extraordinary argument this is—"I want to consider whether it is desirable or justifiable for the Insurance Fund to credit contributions between the ages of 16 and 18, because I have made special transitional provisions whereby anyone—"

Miss BONDFIELD: I beg your pardon; it is not I who did it, but your side.

Lord E. PERCY: The Minister is now basing herself, as right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite usually do, on her predecessors. It is the lack of originality of which I complain. Because a thing is old, they say, what is the good of saying whether under an insurance scheme a boy of 16 to 18 should be credited with contributions, because we have made special transitional arrangements by which they shall get that money, not out of the Insurance Fund but out of the Exchequer. Really that is no far-sighted way of dealing with a matter of this kind, and especially with an educational problem.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Duchess of ATHOLL: The Minister in resisting the Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy), as on former occasions has sheltered behind the recommendations of the Advisory Councils.
But in doing so she overlooked a very important part of that recommendation—that contributions should be paid on the strength of full-time attendance at instruction centres. I can find nothing in the Clause as drafted to ensure that the attendance shall be full-time attendance. I would remind the right hon. Lady that this qualification of full-time attendance was not only required by the English Advisory Council but by the Salvesen Committee. As a rule a, child does not attend a juvenile centre more than 15 hours a week. Apparently under the Bill contributions are to be credited as much for half-time as for full-time attendance at a day school, either primary or secondary.
With regard to the juvenile instruction centres, we know that the children attending are free to leave as soon as they get a job, and to walk in again on any day when they have fallen out of employment. It is therefore extremely difficult to get, in these centres, anything in the nature of continuous and consecutive instruction. Though I yield to no one in my admiration of the work of these centres, yet I do not think that anyone who has studied the work that they are doing from an educational point of view can put that work alongside the work of the full-time day school from the standpoint of real consecutive and carefully planned instruction. This seems to be a very grave defect in the Clause. Then again, if we come to attendance at continuation classes, the Minister must know that very often a young person attending such classes is in employment and attends the classes for part time only. There is nothing in the Clause to leave out cases of that kind. Are we to understand that even if a young person is in employment for more hours in the week than the hours during which he is receiving instruction, contributions are to be credited to him without any contribution being required from him?
10.0 p.m.
This point is worthy of serious attention. The Clause, as drafted, is far too wide and has gone far beyond the recommendations which the Minister has had from any council. I do not think that the English Advisory Council has really devoted a great deal of time to the consideration of this question. There really has not been much time for any council to give consideration to this very important point since these questions were
referred to it by the Minister. If we look at Sub-section (3) we find a reference to the question how far holidays are to be allowed to count in calculating periods of attendance. That goes very much beyond any recommendations that the Minister has received. The matter calls for a great deal of thought. We must beware as to how far we encourage people to regard attendance at a half-time centre or continuation class as a favour which they are conferring on anyone. We want, surely, to encourage the children to regard attendance at any class or school as a privilege which they, on their part, will turn to good account.
I want to ask the Minister's attention to another very serious point, which I can hardly believe has escaped her notice, and that is that this crediting of contributions in respect of insurable occupations seems to me to weight the scales still further against young people who desire to enter uninsured occupations. On the Second Reading she spoke to us of her desire to include agriculture among the insured occupations and she frankly said that she saw great difficulties in doing so. She certainly gave the House to understand that she was not yet in a position to recommend any proposal either for including agriculture under the existing insurance scheme, or for drawing up a special scheme for agriculture. It seems to me inevitable that, if young people know that by attendance at a school, or continuation class, or Juvenile Instruction Centre for a year, they will pile up as much as 20 contributions towards benefit, provided they have entered an insured occupation, they will hesitate even more than some of them do now before entering an uninsured one. I need not enlarge on the difficulties in which the agricultural community finds itself and it seems to me that this Clause is going to add greatly to those difficulties. I feel that the right hon. Lady is going to rush agriculture on the rocks of those very difficulties which she described to us on the Second Reading.
There is another very important occupation which is uninsured, namely, domestic service. I know I shall have the Minister with me when I point out the importance of this occupation and how it is the best preparation for the art of home-making, an art which has to be practised at some time by almost every woman in the country. It is an occupa-
tion on which the health and comfort and happiness of the homes of this country largely depend. The right hon. Lady must know as well as I do how grave is the deficiency in the number of young people who are prepared to enter domestic work. The difficulty of getting domestic assistance is experienced in every home in the country. It applies to homes of every kind, and, indeed, probably most of all to the homes where, as a rule, only one or two assistants are desired. She must know how many women who have duties to perform outside their homes experience great difficulties because they have to give so much time to home duties which in former times would have been devoted to those outside duties. She must know of the number of professional women who have to give time to domestic work which they would be much better qualified to devote to painting or writing or something of that kind. The difficulties of which I speak are experienced by people in homes of all kinds, but most of all I believe by those who only need the services of one girl to help them. We all know the difficulty which these people experience in getting help of any kind.
Further, I venture to think that the reluctance of girls to enter domestic service adds to overcrowding in a great many homes. Girls of 15 and 16 are staying at home, looking out for insured work, instead of going into private domestic service, and this, undoubtedly, adds to overcrowding in the homes of those girls. The right hon. Lady, I am sure, is aware of these considerations, and I raise this question because it is essentially one for women. Women can appreciate the position in which practically all the housewives of this country find themselves in this matter. Every housewife knows that at any moment she may be bereft of assistance which is of great importance to her and she may be very hard put to it to find any alternative assistance. It is only a few months ago since the Minister and I spoke at a large public meeting specially convened to deal with this matter, and the right hon. Lady yielded to no one in her recognition of the shortage of domestic workers and the importance of work of this kind, and she made an eloquent speech well calculated to help young people to realise its importance.
It seems obvious that this Clause is bound to increase the reluctance which some young people feel about entering this occupation. When they know that they will have these contributions credited to them if they go into an insured occupation, such as clerical work, as we all know is, then, inevitably, this Clause will seriously increase the shortage of domestic workers. That point seems to have escaped the attention of the Committees which have made the recommendations on which the right hon. Lady has, so far, acted, but I submit that it was not the duty of either the Malcolm Committee or the Salvesen Committee to consider these points. They were set up to consider mainly educational matters and I dare say this larger point of view never occurred to them, or if it did, that they did not consider it to be within their terms of reference. But here I submit we have to take an all round view. We have to think of the needs of the country as a whole, and we cannot afford to leave out of account the need for a steady supply of labour to our basic industry of agriculture, nor can we afford, in the interest of the physical and moral well-being of our homes, to leave out of account the serious effects which I am certain this Clause will have on the supply of young people for domestic service.

Mr. SANDERS: I think that on this side of the Committee we have appreciated the orgy of enthusiasm for education which has been displayed on the other side, but, instead of criticising the Minister in connection with this Clause, that enthusiasm, so eloquently and frequently displayed this evening, might have been followed by thanks to the Minister for drawing such a wide Clause—a Clause that will give countless opportunities for providing that education and training which Members on the other side seem to be longing to establish as the right of all young persons. We have just heard that it is degrading to education to drive young people to attend continuation classes by offering them the magnificent sum of 20 contributions which amounts to 8s. 4d. The Noble, Lady the Member for Perth and Kinross (Duchess of Atholl) comes from Scotland and probably knows the attractive power of
8s. 4d. to a country man or a country woman; but I can assure her that offering 8s. 4d. to boys or girls of 16 or 17 in London will not be a sufficient attraction if they do not want to go to training centres. Therefore there is no danger of degrading—

Duchess of ATHOLL: The juvenile instruction centre really cannot he called a training centre. It is better described as a centre for social salvage.

Mr. SANDERS: That rather indicates that a great deal of this talk of education for young people of 16, 17, and 18, while they are out of work, is fallacious. I know something about education. I was for nine years on the London County Council Education Committee, and I was Chairman of the Evening Schools and Polytechnics Sub-committee, and I know very well that a good deal of the education given there, excepting where the students were really in earnest and attended voluntarily very regularly, was not of a remarkably fine order; but the advantage of the evening schools and the polytechnics is that there is an opportunity offered in those institutions for talent which desires to train itself, and I do not think that any kind of training centre for children in and out of work is going to do much more than steady them. It is not going to give them very much valuable education, but it may just be sufficient to keep them from acquiring habits that are not desirable in young citizens. Therefore, if we want to prevent these young persons from acquiring certain habits that can be found in the streets of London and elsewhere, not only by giving them an opportunity, but by pressing them, to go to these training centres, we may not be educating them very thoroughly, but we are doing, through the Ministry of Labour, what the other side have asked us to do, and that is to make a certain disciplinary order in return for the amount of contributions these people receive.
That, in my opinion, is as much as we can expect. If we are going to talk seriously of education, we must deal with it entirely apart from the question of unemployment, and I do not think that whether or not we give contributions up to the age of 18 for children to go to secondary schools, it will have any influence whatever on how many children
go there. Quite another set of difficulties, of principles, and of circumstances must be brought into account when we are discussing education, and therefore, as I have said before, I think we ought to be grateful to the Minister of Labour for drawing up this very wide Clause, under which she will be able to make large and varied experiments in dealing with the unfortunate young people who are not engaged in steady and continuous employment.

Captain BOURNE: I am sure the hon. Member opposite will forgive me if I do not pursue the educational aspect of this Clause. The point on which I should be obliged to the Minister for a reply is on the financial effect of this Clause, because, so far as I have heard the Debate, it has been confined entirely to the educational aspect. As I understand this Clause, it is proposed to credit juveniles between the ages of 15 and 16, provided they are attending certain approved forms of education—and into the merits of that I will not go—with 20 contributions for the year, and these contributions are not to be effective after the juvenile attains the age of 18. The Minister explained on the last Amendment that that was not necessary, because after the age of 18 they come under the transitional provisions of either this Bill or the Act of 1927. As I understand the Unemployment Insurance Act, contributions are received from three sources, namely, the employer, the employed and the State.
It is obvious that, in the case of the child who is attending an instructional course, he or she has no wage from which a contribution can be made, and for that child there must obviously be a credit if any contribution is to be paid. The same would appear to apply to the employers, because you can hardly count the education authorities under which the child is receiving instruction as employers. What is the position of the third party to the insurance, the State? Does the State make a contribution in respect of each of these juveniles who, for the purpose of this Clause, is being credited with 20 contributions? If no provision is made at all, I should be obliged if the right hon. Lady can give some estimate as to what is really to be drawn from the fund for the credited
contributions, for which no money has been paid by anybody.
I represent in this House a city which has very little unemployment, and where the bulk of the people who pay unemployment insurance contributions have had very little need to draw from the Fund. We are very largely dependent on a certain industry, and should anything happen to render that industry less prosperous, there would be a very heavy drain by my constituents-upon that Fund in respect of contributions which, in the vast majority of cases, they have made for many years, and in respect of which they have drawn nothing. In justice to them, it is my business to see that no provision is put into this or any other unemployment Measure, which might prejudice their rights, and one of the most important features of this Clause is the amount of liability which it will put upon the Bill when it comes into force.
So far as we have had any estimate, I understand that the amount of juvenile unemployment during the next few years is likely to be pretty small. In that case, I am puzzled to see what benefit any juvenile is going to gain by the credit of contributions up to the age of 18, when the probability that they rill be out of work is not very grew. The right hon. Lady must assume that there will be at least a reasonable proportion of juvenile unemployment between 16 and 18 in the next few years, or she would not have inserted this Clause. We ought to know whether any contribution is to be paid from the Exchequer towards the credited contributions, and what is the total amount which the Government actuary estimates is likely to be thrown on the Fund in consequence of the Clause. I agree that one of the results of this Clause may be to prejudice and put a weight in favour of the insurable employments as against the uninsurable employments. That particularly concerns agriculture, and one or two employments of that kind, which are not in the Bill. Of these, far the most important is agriculture, and I hope that the right hon. Lady will consider the position of agriculture between now and the Report stage, and see if something cannot be done to prevent the scales, which are heavily weighted against intelligent boys and girls in the agricultural industry, being still more heavily weighted in consequence of this Clause.

Mr. HARRIS: I did not quite understand whether the Noble Lady the Member for Perth and Kinross (Duchess of Atholl) was in favour of this Clause or against it; nor do I understand whether the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford University, who spoke last—

Captain BOURNE: May I inform the hon. Member that I do not represent Oxford University, but Oxford City.

Mr. HARRIS: The hon. and gallant Member speaks for a more important place than I gave him credit for. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Oxford City with its historic traditions; ought to be associated with educational advance. I was not quite clear whether he was against this Clause or for it, whether he thought it was a good way of making provision or a had one. The hon. Member opposite also seemed a bit confused. I could not quite follow whether he was for or against the Clause. He suggested that the educational value of attending a course recognised by the Board of Education was not so very great.

Mr. SANDERS: My point was that when attendance there was broken by employment for short periods it would not be of such great value.

Mr. HARRIS: Obviously, the hon. Member has not read the Clause, because it is one to provide for people who have not gone into industry. The idea is to persuade young people to stay on at school instead of going into industry. That is why I am in favour of it, and I thank the right hon. Lady for bringing it in. It is a natural sequence to the first Clause. If we are to bring into insurance young persons between 15 and 16 years of age who go to work, it is essential that those who stay on at a continuation school or a technical college ought not to be in a worse position so far as insurance is concerned.

Major GLYN: After the speech of the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris), I confess that I am still at a loss to know where the Liberal party stands in regard to this Clause. All would agree, I think, that it would be preferable for juveniles who are unable to get work to attend some school of
instruction rather than to hang about Employment Exchanges, but does the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken really believe that it would not be to the advantage of the juvenile to get into a trade as soon as possible if he can find a job? I believe it is the greatest nonsense in the world to suppose that it is beyond our capacity as a nation to make regulations in conjunction with the trade unions and others under which a juvenile could enter a trade to learn his or her work, and at the same time, as part of that work, gain experience and instruction which would help him or her to go right forward in that industry.
There is a terrible lot of nonsense talked—[Interruption.] I am trying to break away from it. There is a certain amount of nonsense talked about young people not getting in their jobs at too early an age—providing those jobs are properly supervised. No one wants to advocate child labour, but I am convinced that many a skilled craftsman of 40 or 50 who is working to-day, and is proud of his work, does not in the least regret having gone into industry as a juvenile. There is more chance that a young person will take pride in his work and become skilled if he goes into his trade early than if he attends some school where there is no guarantee that the teacher will be really capable of making the work interesting. When I was young I had to go to school—[Interruption.] Hon. Members may believe that my instructors were indifferent teachers. While we agree about the machinery for giving instruction, it is necessary to see that the standard among those who impart the instruction is of an ever-increasingly high order.
The hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Sanders), in his interesting speech, said that these places are not so much places for instruction as for social salvage. That is quite true. Obviously, the education is to be taken in stages. First of all, you want to save the juveniles from going down the slippery slope to helplessness; you want to save them from being discouraged, and it is necessary to enlist their sympathy, direct them into suitable channels, and see that the instruction they receive is more or less technical. I find that in this Clause the words
("other than a day continuation school")
are put in brackets. Why are they put inside brackets The words to which I am referring are to be found in Sub-section (2, a) of this Clause which reads:
Provided that in the case of a person attending a school (other than a day continuation school) or a course of instruction.
I should like to know why this exception was made in the case of a day continuation school, which in many areas is the only form of instruction. The position can be summed up by saying that everybody wants to see some form of interest put in front of the juveniles. Education is the desire of people who want to know more, and those are the people whom you want to interest in this work. You should never put any bar in the way of a juvenile having the opportunity of getting to the very top of the tree. One way of assisting in this work is by means of enlightened employers working with organised labour to help people in jobs to get additional education which will help them in their work, enable them to get better wages, and take a greater pride in their work.

Miss BONDFIELD: May I remind the hon. and gallant Member for Abingdon (Major Glyn) that the Clause reads:
Provided that in the case of a person attending a school (other than a day continuation school) or a course of instruction no contributions shall be so credited unless and until that person becomes entitled to have five contributions so credited;
This provision makes it easier for the person attending a day continuation school. In regard to the point raised about the uninsurable trades, the great basis of this scheme is that we shall bring all the juveniles under the care of juvenile centres, and they will receive advice as to the best kind of education to be given to those juveniles. We are only dealing with those in insurable occupations. I can assure hon. Members that, if it were possible, I should have no objection to bringing domestic servants and those engaged in agriculture inside this Clause. The decision on that point does not rest with me. There is great objection on the part of domestic servants to be insured, there is great objection on the part of mistresses to paying insurance contributions, and at present we are examining how far we can get over the objections that there are in relation to agriculture. But I do not propose to stop at the point
of investigation that we have reached; I hope to go on and extend the insurance scheme.

Duchess of ATHOLL: Did not the right hon. Lady herself say what great difficulty there was in including agricultural workers, and is it not the case that the difficulty in regard to including domestic servants is that there is no unemployment among domestic servants, so that they would be paying their contributions year after year with very little prospect of getting any benefit?

Miss BONDFIELD: They are what I call the "good lives" in relation to the national insurance scheme, and we want the good lives as well as the bad ones. If hon. Members will refer to the Appendix to the Report of the Advisory Councils, they will find there the conditions governing the proposed scheme, and among those conditions it is laid down that one contribution should be credited for two complete weeks' attendance, including holiday periods falling within the period of continued attendance. If, for instance, a child is attending for the whole term, the Advisory Councils recommend that these periods should be regarded as weeks for the purpose of the 20 stamps, but there will be no more than 20 stamps under any conditions, and it would not apply in the case of short-time attendance at schools. I think that the position is entirely safeguarded by the regulations that will be issued under this Clause. I am entirely at one with those who deplore the fact that so many children have to go into industry so early. In connection with juvenile instruction centres that is the most difficult end of the whole problem in relation to educational facilities; but we try to make it regular in this sense, that, while the opportunity is afforded on any half-day for following up any opportunity which will allow them to return to employment, it is laid down that they shall attend on five half-days within the week—that they shall be regular in that sense; and every half-day in the week on which they attend a centre helps to qualify for the 20 stamps.

Duchess of ATHOLL: Then I was right, was I not, in understanding that contributions are to be credited equally for part-time attendance at a juvenile instruction centre and for whole-time attendance?

Miss BONDFIELD: Not equally. If the Noble Lady will refer to the regulations, she will see that a definite distinction is drawn between those attending part-time and those attending full-time. Finally, I would like to say that one feels that the result of this discussion on the Clause dealing with the bridging of the gap is very helpful, and that an extraordinary sentiment has been established and approved of in all quarters of the Committee in favour of continuing the educational period of the child. We are experimenting, and I am glad to be able to make this contribution. It is not perfect by any means, but we hope to go on to still better and more perfect schemes; but at any rate the Committee will have the satisfaction of knowing that it has helped to build one more step of the ladder.

Sir B. PETO: rose—

HON. MEMBERS: Divide!

Sir B. PETO: I should not have intervened had it not been, in the first place, for the speech of the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris). My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne) asked some very pertinent questions of the right hon. Lady who represents the Government, but it appears to me that he has received, so far as I have been able to gather, a very inadequate answer. His principal question was as to where the money was really coming from to pay the contributions of the employer, the employé and the State, and I heard no definite reply on that point. The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green ventured to criticise my hon. and gallant Friend on the ground that, on the question of the Clause standing part, he had not made it perfectly clear whether he was in favour or was not in favour of the Clause. This is the first time I have ever heard in this House the doctrine laid down that it is improper for auy Member to rise on this question except to state whether he is going into the Aye Lobby or the No. The object of putting the question you, Sir, have put to the Committee, as I understand it, is to elucidate points on the Clause on which hon. Members may require guidance before they decide whether they are going into the Aye Lobby or the No. My hon. and gallant Friend, having received no
adequate reply to his question, I can only suppose he is still in doubt whether he should support the Clause on the whole or not.
My second reason for rising is the speech which we have just heard from the right hon. Lady. She told us she was longing for the day when she would be able to include in the insurance scheme against unemployment domestic servants and members of the agricultural community. She said she wanted to get what she called the good lives of industrial insurance in order to bolster up—I am not using her exact words, but that was the gist of the argument—this fund which is now so vastly in arrears.

The CHAIRMAN: The Minister said she hoped to do certain things, but I cannot allow the hon. Member to discuss the things she hopes to do.

Sir B. PETO: I hoped I should be allowed a brief word of reply but since you, Sir, have ruled that I must not further refer to this question of improving the financial status of the Insurance Fund by bringing in the agricultural labourer, who will get no adequate return for his contributions, I will leave that subject.
There are other considerations which the Committee should have in mind before they decide the question of this Clause standing part. Firstly, as I understand it, it is to provide a somewhat curious state under which a person who is not employed is deemed to be employed because he is receiving instruction. Under the old system, when a young person left school he became employed, generally as an apprentice. He received instruction as well as wages and was part of the employed community. I wish to record my opinion that, no matter how much you may elaborate this system which the right hon. Lady calls prolonging the period of tutelage—she did not tell us how long she hoped to prolong it, whether it must be till after the age of 21 or some maturer age—you will never get any system so conducive to carrying on the trades and industries of the country and finding employment as the old apprenticeship system which is now falling into disuse. It cost nothing. The young people knew where they were. It gave instruction in the trade or industry in which they had to earn their living and there was no question of having this
curious prolongation of the period of tutelage, when you do not know whether the child is a child or a man, and when you have an elaborate system of State contribution to an unemployment fund in which he has no possible chance of getting anything and into which he is only introduced in order once more to bolster up a fund which is practically bankrupt. On those grounds, and particularly in view of Sub-section (3), I think that it is a very unsatisfactory Clause indeed. Sub-section (3) says:
Provision may be made by the regulations under this section for determining how far holidays are to be included in calculating periods of attendance.
We have now a system under which a young person who is not employed is deemed to be in employment and has his contributions paid entirely by the State, as far as I understand it, towards this fund. But, even when under instruction, that is not the end of it. The question arises under Subsection (3) as to how far, when he is not under instruction but is enjoying his holiday, he is still deemed to be under instruction, and so ex hypothesi a member of the employed community. I cannot imagine an absurdity either on the educational or the unemployment question carried to a greater extent than that the young person who is still at school is deemed to be employed. There is no contribution from the young person. He has no employer, so that there are no contributions from the employer, and, even when he is not being educated and is on holiday, he is still deemed to be employed.

Mr. HASLAM: I should like to express my disappointment that the right hon. Lady has not given any answer to the question asked by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne). It may not be in order to discuss the right hon. Lady's benevolent intentions in regard to the industry of agriculture, but I take it that it is in order to discuss the effect of this Clause on those engaged in agriculture. In general terms, I would like to say that I am entirely in favour of this Clause. I agree that it is very much better that these young persons should receive education than that they should be hanging about doing nothing; yet on the face of the Clause, it is very apparent and stands to reason that, as there are no contributions
from the employer and there can practically be very few contributions from the young people themselves, the greater part of the money expended must be derived from the State. If that is so, and if the greater part of the contributions come out of the pockets of the general taxpayer, then those engaged in agriculture are making a contribution to this project. I was hoping the right hon. Lady would give us figures which would elucidate that point. If those engaged in agriculture, as part of the general taxpayers of the country, are going to contribute to these schemes with educational objects, I maintain that it is only just and fair that the agricultural population should derive some benefit. I would point out that the agricultural population to-day is very desirous to having educational opportunities, and it would be an immense advantage to them if they could have some share.

The CHAIRMAN: I do not think that comes under this Bill and therefore, whatever they may desire, it would not be in Order to discuss it now.

Mr. HASLAM: I submit that, in view of the fact that the agricultural community is going to pay for the facilities given under this Clause, they ought to have some right to participate in them, as a matter of common justice. I beg the right hon. Lady to give us some information as to where the financial burden will fall and how far it will fall on the general community.

Miss BONDFIELD: I apologise to the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne). It was entirely an oversight that I did not reply to his question, and I am glad to have the opportunity of doing so now. The position is quite clear, if you read the Clause together with the conditions to which I have referred on page 10, that no unemployment insurance pay can be given until the young person enters an insurable trade. Then simultaneously the liability begins for the State, the employer and the young person. It is a question of a mere transaction, and no money passes at all. The scheme of instruction through juvenile centres is not confined to persons who are going into insurable trades. It is open to all young persons. We want as far as we can to develop educational opportunities for children whether they are going into an insured trade or not, and
that is going to be done. The finances are borne in part by the Ministry of Labour, part by the Education Fund, and part by the Treasury. The Treasury pays 75 per cent., and the education authorities 25 per cent., and of the 75 per cent. the Unemployment Insurance Fund pays half.

Sir B. PETO: Does not that mean that the taxpayer pays the lot?

Duchess of ATHOLL: What type of instruction is the 75 per cent. going to be for?

Miss BONDFIELD: I accepted the Amendment moved by the Noble Lord opposite to insert the word "efficient" in reference to the instruction provided by the Board of Education. That is the 75 per cent.

Captain BOURNE: May I ask, firstly, whether the expenditure that the Minister has said will be borne by the State up to 75 per cent. is for education, and whether the credit contribution is purely a book-keeping entry?

Miss BONDFIELD: Yes, purely a hook-keeping entry.

Captain BOURNE: The second question is: What is the consequent liability thrown on the public because of the book entry contributions in respect of juveniles who may be paid insured benefit between the ages of 16 and 18?

Miss BONDFIELD: It is the liability which is involved in the franking of 20 contributions as against 30 contributions. Insured persons will be paying 10 instead of 30, but the amount of unemployment among juveniles is such that it amounts to a very small sum indeed.

Captain EDEN: The right hon. Lady's answer has not explained the extraordinary statement that she made a few minutes ago. Some of us on this side are very much interested in the effect of this Clause on the agricultural industry. As a mere aside, the right hon. Lady informed us of her ultimate hopes in respect to that industry. You ruled that out of order. Therefore, I will not deal with it, but I will say to the right hon. Lady that if she thinks that it is going to lie in her power, under this Clause or under any other, by some sorry or sinister stratagem to mulct the agricultural worker, who is the lowest paid of all skilled workers—

The CHAIRMAN: When legislation is produced for the purpose of doing that, it will be time for the hon. and gallant Member to raise the point.

Captain EDEN: Yes, but I would point out that this Clause does directly affect the agricultural industry. Moreover, the right hon. Lady went out of her way to point out how it did affect the agricultural industry. Therefore, we on this side of the House who are more concerned with the future of that industry than is the right hon. Lady are entitled to draw her attention to the effect of this Clause, and simply to say to her that the future of that industry will not allow of extravagant attempts to take money from it, either for the purpose of this Clause or any other Clause, in order to subsidise urban industries, where the wages are higher than those that are paid in rural areas.

Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 284; Noes, 130.

Division No. 83.]
AYES.
[10.58 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Burgin, Dr. E. L.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Benson, G.
Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Calne, Derwent Hall-


Alpass, J. H.
Birkett, W. Norman
Cameron, A. G.


Ammon, Charles George
Blindell, James
Cape, Thomas


Angell, Norman
Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S.W.)


Arnott, John
Bowen, J. w.
Charleton, H. C.


Aske, Sir Robert
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Chater, Daniel


Attlee, Clement Richard
Broad, Francis Alfred
Church, Major A. G.


Ayles, Walter
Brockway, A. Fenner
Cluse, W. S.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bliston)
Bromfield, William
Cocks, Frederick Seymour


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Bromley, J.
Compton, Joseph


Barnes, Alfred John
Brothers, M.
Cowan, D. M.


Batey, Joseph
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Daggar, George


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Dallas, George


Bellamy, Albert
Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Dalton, Hugh


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Buchanan, G.
Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)


Bennett, Captain E.N.(Cardiff, Central)
Burgess, F. G.
Denman, Hon. R. D.


Dickson, T.
Lawson, John James
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Dudgeon, Major C. R
Lawther, W. (Barnard Cattle)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Dukes, C.
Lee, Frank (Derby, N.E.)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Duncan, Charles
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)


Ede, James Chuter
Lees, J.
Sanders, W. S.


Edge, Sir William
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Sandham, E.


Edmunds, J. E.
Lindley, Fred W.
Sawyer, G. F.


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Scott, James


Egan, W. H.
Longbottom, A. W.
Scrymgeour, E.


Eimley, Viscount
Longden F.
Scurr, John


England, Colonel A.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Sexton, James


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Lunn, William
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Foot, Isaac
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Sherwood, G. H.


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
McElwee, A.
Shield, George William


Gibbins, Joseph
McEntee, V. L.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Gill, T. H.
Mackinder, W.
Shillaker, J. F.


Gillett, George M.
McKinlay, A.
Shinwell, E.


Glassey, A. E.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Gosling, Harry
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Simmons, C. J,


Gossling, A. G.
McShane, John James
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Gould, F.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Sitch, Charles H.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Mansfield, W.
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)


Granville, E.
Markham, S. F.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Gray, Milner
Marley, J.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Mathers, George
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Matters, L. W.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Maxton, James
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, pontypool)
Melville, Sir James
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Groves, Thomas E.
Messer, Fred
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Grundy, Thomas W.
Middleton, G.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Mills, J. E.
Sorensen, R.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Milner, J.
Spero, Dr. G. E.


Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Montague, Frederick
Stamford, Thomas W.


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Stephen, Campbell


Harbord, A.
Morley, Ralph
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Hardie, George D.
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Harris, Percy A.
Mort, D. L.
Strauss, G. R.


Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Moses, J. J. H.
Sullivan, J.


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Sutton, J. E.


Haycock, A. W.
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)
Taylor R. A. (Lincoln)


Hayday, Arthur
Muff, G.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S.W.)


Hayes, John Henry
Muggeridge, H. T.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Murnin, Hugh
Thurtle, Ernest


Henderson, Arthur, junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Naylor, T. E.
Tillett, Ben


Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Tinker, John Joseph


Henderson, W. w. (Middx., Enfield)
Noel Baker, P. J.
Tout, W. J.


Herriotts, J.
Oldfield, J. R.
Townend, A. E.


Hirst, G. H. (York, W. R., Wentworth)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Turner, B.


Hoffman, P. C.
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Vaughan, D. J.


Hollins, A.
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)
Viant, S. P.


Hopkin, Daniel
Palin, John Henry
Wallace, H. W.


Horrabin, J. F.
Palmer, E. T.
Watkins, F. C.


Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Perry, S. F.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wellock, Wilfred


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Phillips, Dr. Marlon
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Johnston, Thomas
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Pole, Major D. G.
West, F. R.


Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Ponsonby, Arthur
White, H. G.


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Potts, John S.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Price, M. P.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Pybus, Percy John
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Ouibell, D. F. K.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Kelly, W. T.
Rathbone, Eleanor
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Kennedy, Thomas
Raynes, W. R.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Kinley, J.
Richards, R.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wise, E. F.


Lang, Gordon
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Ritson, J.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Lathan, G.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)



Law, Albert (Bolton)
Romeril, H. G.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Law, A. (Rosendale)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.


Lawrence, Susan
Rowson, Guy
Paling.


NOES.


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.


Albery, Irving James
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Atholl, Duchess of
Balfour, George (Hampstead)


Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)
Atkinson, C.
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.




Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Power, Sir John Cecil


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Bird, Ernest Roy
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Ramsbotham, H.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. sir James Rennell


Boyce, H. L.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Salmon, Major I.


Bracken, B.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l d"., Hexham)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hartington, Marquess of
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Haslam, Henry C.
Savory, S. S.


Carver, Major W. H.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Colman, N. C. D,
Herbert, S.(York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine. C.)


Cranbourne, Viscount
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Croom-Johnson, R. p.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Lane Fox, Rt. Hon. George R.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Stuart, J. C. (Moray and Nairn)


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)
Thomson, Sir F.


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Long, Major Eric
Tinne, J. A.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Dawson, Sir Philip
Mac Robert, Rt. Han. Alexander M.
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Dixey, A. C.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Duckworth, G. A. V,
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Eden, Captain Anthony
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Marjoribanks, E. C.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Everard, W. Lindsay
Meller, R. J.
Wells, Sydney R.


Ferguson, Sir John
Mitchell-Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Fermoy, Lord
Mond, Hon. Henry
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Fielden, E. B.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Fison, F. G. Clavering
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Ford, Sir P. J.
Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)
Womersley, W. J.


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Muirhead, A. J.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W.G.(Ptrsf'ld)



Ganzonl, Sir John
O'Neill, Sir H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Sir George Penny and Captain


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Wallace.


Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)



Bill read the Third time, and passed.

resolved "that the chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again."—[Mr. T. Kennedy.]

committee report progress; to sit again To-morrow.

HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS (MEDI- CAL SERVICE) ADDITIONL GRANT BILL.

The remaining orders were read, and postponed.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn"—[Mr. T. Kennedy.]

adjourned accordingly at ten minutes after Eleven o'clock.